D&D General Players make the rolls and Defensive Reactions

[Garthanos]

Something I really liked when I read of it in 3e and I have used it
in 4e is a concept "Players make all the rolls", in it if you as a player were attacked the dm described wind up and the player described the method they used to defense. I would grant in 4e a standard +2 bonus for if the player seemed to pick a very appropriate method. But by and large the game wasnt designed with this mind. So its kind of flavorful but faint in value.

I found this article while looking for discussions about the reaction in 5e, which very much made me think of the above and seems to have some very interesting extensions for resolution of actions in a broader scale.

https://theangrygm.com/tweaking-the-core-of-dd-5e/

Its not quite players make all the rolls but contains elements of it.

Oh yeah and it also discusses "Approach, Outcome, Cost, and Consequence "

 

[Charlaquin]

Yup, I’m a big fan of Angry’s tweaks. I don’t do “players always roll,” but I do try to make sure only to call for rolls when a player describes their character actively doing something, which has a possibility of success, possibility of failure, and cost or consequence for failure. To bring saving throws in line with this paradigm, when an NPC or feature of the environment would normally force a PC to make a saving throw, I use Angry’s Reaction Rule - I describe what the character can perceive about the triggering incident, such as the evil wizard’s verbal and somatic components, the dragon taking a deep breath, or the pressure plate clicking under their feet, and ask the player(s) what they do.

 

[5ekyu]

I use PAR - players always roll. Have done so for years. Highly recommend.

 

[Garthanos]

I use PAR - players always roll. Have done so for years. Highly recommend.

I am trying to find ways to make it more worthwhile... or easier to give it some zing.

 

[GMMichael]

Something I really liked when I read of it in 3e and I have used it
in 4e is a concept "Players make all the rolls", in it if you as a player were attacked the dm described wind up and the player described the method they used to defense. I would grant in 4e a standard +2 bonus for if the player seemed to pick a very appropriate method. But by and large the game wasnt designed with this mind. So its kind of flavorful but faint in value.

Is this unusual, for players to describe how their characters defend themselves?

If anything, I suppose it's a consequence of automatic defenses. And hit points. ::Nods knowingly at Zweihaender::

But yeah, thumbs up on both counts (player rolls and reactions).

 

[Oofta]

Meh. If it works for you, great. I find his articles have interesting bits here and there but I get tired of his style, mannerisms and one-true-way rhetoric.


[RANT]
For example if someone thinks an NPC is lying, I don't give a flying fig if they ask "can I make an insight check". If the player doesn't indicate that their PC is suspicious how the frack am I supposed to know to call for a check? I'm not a mind reader. Maybe Bob the Barbarian doesn't trust the merchant while Rosy the Ranger believes him because it's her flaw to be over-trusting. So Bob's player asks for an insight check. I've never had anyone explain why that is so wrong other than it's not the "proper" way to play or what they do as an alternative.
[/RANT]


I just don't think the other stuff he talks about adds that much to the game. The rules of 5E stay out of my way enough to tell an fun story and have engaging encounters. I don't necessarily have a problem with tumbling out of the way of a trap, but the whole point of saving throws to me is that you are not making a conscious decision. A saving throw represents muscle memory/an instinctive reaction that you don't even think about. It's jerking your hand back because you just touched that pan you didn't realize was hot.


So sometimes telling the player they hear that click (how do we know they heard the click?) and how they react is fine. I do that now and then. But generalizing that beyond a few specific scenarios? Meh.

 

[iserith]

I've never liked saving throws in D&D 5e and would much prefer it work like Defy Danger in Dungeon World, where the player gets a say as to how he or she responds to the triggering event and that description informs how the DM adjudicates. This would bring it more in line with how actions are resolved with ability checks.

Alternatively I'd accept a D&D 5e version of D&D 4e's "everything's an attack roll" when it comes to getting rid of saving throws, though that's just moving things from one column to another and doesn't offer much in the way of a choice for dealing with the threat since the attacker is just rolling against a pre-determined static defense.

I'm giving either of these some serious thought for my next campaign, provided it's not too cumbersome to implement.

 

[Jer]

"Players make all the rolls"

My 4e campaign moved to this about midway through its run and it was great as far as I'm concerned. 4e in general was great about giving my players hooks to describe what they were doing instead of just "I guess I swing my sword at it", and when we moved to players making all the rolls it just carried over even more.

I've been tempted to alter my 13th Age game to do this same, but 13A has so many little things that are impacted by the d20 roll that it's not as easy to do (i.e. monster powers that have different effects on odd or even rolls, damage resistance keyed off the raw number on d20, etc.) So I haven't.

I haven't even thought about doing the same for 5e tbh - mostly because my only 5e campaigns are explicitly about teaching new players the rules to Dungeons and Dragons, so I try to go as by the book as possible for their sakes.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Something I really liked when I read of it in 3e and I have used it
in 4e is a concept "Players make all the rolls"

The idea occurred to me on a first look at 4e, when I noticed the defenses replacing saving throws, and that, yeah a save was prettymuch always just the defender rolling to resolve an attack. "Hey, instead of attacker always rolling, how 'bout /player/ always rolling?" It puts the drama in their hands, but, obviously, removes 'fudging' from behind the DM screen. (So, really, fine for 4e, potentially a bad idea in 5e - heck /DM always rolls/, might be a good idea in 5e.)

 

[Jer]

It puts the drama in their hands, but, obviously, removes 'fudging' from behind the DM screen. (So, really, fine for 4e, potentially a bad idea in 5e - heck /DM always rolls/, might be a good idea in 5e.)

Yeah - that's the other reason I haven't thought a lot about it for 5e - at least until 6th level or so I think the pcs are too fragile and the encounters too swingy to trust that I could make it work. Even after that, I'm not positive it would work. 4e and 13A are the only editions I've been comfortable with letting the dice fall where they may - if the PCs go down in those editions it's because they screwed up or had bad luck, not that the encounter they were facing was accidentally harder than I intended it to be. (If I'm planting clues that the encounter is too hard for them it's on them if they ignore it and go in swinging. If the encounter design rules are busted and I have to use trial and error to feel out how difficult a challenge really is, I need more control to fudge a busted encounter into something closer to the challenge I meant to give them.)