Legends and Lore - Player vs. Character Poll Thread

[Mark CMG]

Thought we might need a Legends and Lore - Player vs. Character Poll Thread. If it can be combined with the other thread while still keeping the poll available, I'm just fine with that too.

When you're exploring the environment in a D&D game, which of these methods do you prefer?

A - Rolling a Search check or Perception check.

B - Describing to the DM what your character does, and letting the DM make a judgment call.

C - A combination of the two approaches, with players describing their actions and the DM rolling dice as appropriate.

Here's a link to the article -

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Player vs. Character)

And here's a link to Sammael's discussion thread -

http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/310891-new-legends-lore-player-vs-character.html

 

[Nagol]

None of the above.

I prefer the player describing the action, the DM informing the player what check (if any) is necessary to successfully accomplish their attempt and have the player make that check then the DM explains the result.

 

[Dice4Hire]

I do not like how much my recent games have fallen into the roll dice, but do not work style, so I am working to roll it back to more player work and less dice work.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I voted C. The key to this choice being " as appropriate". Dice are brought into play when there is a degree of uncertainty.

 

[JeffB]

I voted choice 3, but I have no problem with 2.

Just as long as we stay far far away from #1...yuk.

 

[Corathon]

I voted C. The key to this choice being " as appropriate". Dice are brought into play when there is a degree of uncertainty.

This. If a player says "My character looks under the bed," and the treasure chest is under the bed, no die roll needed. If a PC searches for secret doors, just searching the right spot might not find the secret door, so out come the dice. Although if the PC twists a torch sconce and that's what opens the secret door, again the dice are unnecessary.

I'm also OK with something like "We search the room thoroughly for treasure." Based on the number of searchers and the size/contents of the room, I'll judge how long that takes, and roll for wandering monsters or compare to a schedule of patrols or whatever and the group will find any treasure that's not squirrelled away behind a secret door or the like.

 

[steeldragons]

Most definitely 3 but 2 is good too. I chose three though because I do like there to be a roll in most situations (out of player view) to allow for a sliding scale of DM's discretion as to just how much the character knows and/or is able to discover/discern with their (the character's!) knowledge.

Also, this leaves thigns open for the DM in the event that a roll/check is missed, by a little or a lot. Will the character think they know/be given info that is incomplete or just plain wrong/mistaken?

The elf thief might notice (with her elvin senses) there is a secret door in this dwarven tomb or might not. But the extent of this elf's experience/knowledge of dwarves is that they have beards and like to live in/build things in mountains. Nothing about their mechanisms or preferred/recognizable ways of hiding, guarding or opening such portals.

Her thief training might be able to discern a trap or might not. Might discern the trap is somehow integrated into opening this secret panel or might not. May be able to disarm the trap and/or realize there's a lock (and then may or may not be able to open it). or might not.

Anything from a natural 20/100% success would get them by any of these individual obstacles to a natural 1/0% success (and possibly, mistakenly, believe she turned off the trap or figured out how to open the panel) is a possibility that should be available to the DM. So, as opposed to simply leaving it entirely to player description and DM discretion, I think a roll is necessary.

But I definitely still want to hear SOMEthing from the player as to what they are doing/going about trying to figure it out.

Similarly, the player can have personal knowledge/expertise in various types of things, can describe things beautifully and in detail (or, more than likely, a different player than the one checking) ...and possibly be absolutely correct...but the character can still fail/does not know. So there must be an element of "chance" (the dice roll) present to any of these kinds of "skill/ability check" situations.

There's my two coppers on that.
Have fun and happy dissociating.
--SD

 

[Crazy Jerome]

None of the above. I want:

1. Stakes negotiated, as needed (i.e. when not clear from context).
2. Roll, mostly by players, but occasionally by DM if necessary.
3. Narration based on the stakes and roll, by any relevant participant.

With #2, my preference for players rolling is mainly a handling time issue. So as long as the DM rolls are save for when they matter, I'm fine with that.

I already leaned heavily this way before encountering any Indy games, but Indy exposure has tended to harden this preference rather than moderate it.

 

[Agamon]

The results so far are what I expected. A few like the extremes, but most see it should be somewhere between.

 

[Agamon]

None of the above.

I prefer the player describing the action, the DM informing the player what check (if any) is necessary to successfully accomplish their attempt and have the player make that check then the DM explains the result.

Which c) is, in a nutshell.