D&D 5E Players Self-Assigning Rolls

[Swarmkeeper]

DM describes a scene, players say what they want to do and how they want to do it, and DM determines success or failure or if a roll is needed because something interesting can happen because of the roll. As much as I reiterate this flow, I still get experienced players who throw down some dice without being asked and announce "Survival 24 for doing blah blah" or whatever. Did I miss something between AD&D (which I played as a kid) and 5E (my return to D&D two years ago) that made this alright?

The Run a Game Blog has a nice piece on this:
www.runagame.net/2017/10/players-self-assigning-rolls.html

I guess I'm looking for ways that other DMs deal with situations where players roll the dice for skills without being asked to do so. What say you?

 

[iserith]

I explain to the players that I only need them to state their goal and approach and to hold off on rolling because it is in their best interests.

See, I have to judge whether or not the approach is sufficient to achieve the goal. You might get an auto-success. So, the smart play in this situation in my view is to come up with a fun and reasonable approach to a goal for which you have a related proficiency (just in case you have to roll), then wait for the DM to make a ruling. Asking to roll or forcing a roll is asking for a chance for that d20 to screw you over and/or make you look stupid. It's sometimes funny, but it's not a great survival strategy. (And you don't need extra bad rolls to make the game funny.)

Always aim for auto-success, I say, and treat your skills as insurance against failure on the occasions when the DM calls for a check. In my experience, you will almost always be more successful than players who ask to make or force rolls.

Then I just ignore any rolls they make that I don't ask for. They catch on quick in my experience.

 

[Satyrn]

I tell them to please wait till I ask for a check.

But I also realized they're rolling automatically as a way to tell me what sort of check they're aiming for their action to use. They're getting ahead of me so that I don't have a chance to call for an Insight check when they were fishing for an Arcana check.

So I tell them to wait tilI I ask for a check, and I make sure I know what sort of check they expect before I ask for one.

Essentially, I let the players apply their proficiency if they think they ought to.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Did I miss something between AD&D (which I played as a kid) and 5E (my return to D&D two years ago) that made this alright?

You missed both 3E and 4E, apparently:

Third edition brought the great standardization of mechanics, so all ability scores gave a consistent modifier and all uncertainty was resolved with a d20 check. This is in direct contrast to earlier editions, which were an assortment of ad hoc systems that often used different dice (although many of the core systems still came down to the d20 roll, even then). The major upshot was that the players could usually discern what sort of check would be necessary, even before the DM asked it. The biggest job for the DM, in determining how to resolve any action, was just in setting the DC for the check. And since there were a lot of examples in the book about what sorts of DCs corresponded to which sorts of tasks, it wasn't hard for players to guess both which skill applied and that the DC was within the d20 range of uncertainty such that the roll would be necessary.

Fourth edition attempted to standardize the play experience, by getting rid of things like house rules and making the math even more transparent. It might sound terrible, but their goal was to make it easier for players to find games without requiring a huge adjustment period, so I can respect it from that angle.

I guess I'm looking for ways that other DMs deal with situations where players roll the dice for skills without being asked to do so. What say you?

I don't usually mind if they roll immediately, but sometimes I have to ignore the result when it wouldn't matter (because either success or failure is guaranteed). If you ignore enough of their check results, eventually they might get the hint and stop being so quick to roll.

The bigger problem is when they roll before they describe how they're approaching a problem. "Survival 24" is meaningless, if "survival 24, I'm trying to find some edible roots or berries," would be a failure and "survival 24, I'm trying to catch one of those weird rat things we saw before," would be a success.

 

[Bacon Bits]

Did I miss something between AD&D (which I played as a kid) and 5E (my return to D&D two years ago) that made this alright?

No, it started in 3e when the number of dice rolls for out-of-combat mechanics drastically increased, particularly skills with fixed DCs for certain outcomes. That said, I do remember Thieves rolling percentiles for stealth, lock picking, pick pocket, etc. without waiting for the DM to call for them in 1e/2e, too.


The solution is that whomever is DMing stops the player and says, "Wait. Just tell me what are you attempting to do." If they say, "I'm rolling a <whatever> check and I got a <result>," you say, "No, describe what you are doing and what you're expecting to accomplish."

In other words, you force the player to give you what you need, and ignore the roll until you're ready to tell the player the outcomes of their actions.

 

[Phion]

I might be guilty of this as a player actually, there has never been an issue with my DM's presumably because they were going to ask me to do it; its not a conscious thing that I do.

As DM I have had players who just roll for what they are trying to do, I take no offense and I just inform them if there roll was pointless because of auto success or they made wrong check.

 

[ccs]

I guess I'm looking for ways that other DMs deal with situations where players roll the dice for skills without being asked to do so. What say you?

This'll sound harsh, but if I'm the DM doing this will very often result in failure - no matter what # you call out. Even if it was going to be a situation that didn't require dice rolls.

 

[5ekyu]

DM describes a scene, players say what they want to do and how they want to do it, and DM determines success or failure or if a roll is needed because something interesting can happen because of the roll. As much as I reiterate this flow, I still get experienced players who throw down some dice without being asked and announce "Survival 24 for doing blah blah" or whatever. Did I miss something between AD&D (which I played as a kid) and 5E (my return to D&D two years ago) that made this alright?

The Run a Game Blog has a nice piece on this:
www.runagame.net/2017/10/players-self-assigning-rolls.html

I guess I'm looking for ways that other DMs deal with situations where players roll the dice for skills without being asked to do so. What say you?

Do you find this makes combat go better?

third round player standing next to boss and says " i want to hit him with my battle axe"
you say OK, that will be a take attack action so you will need to roll d20 and add your attack bonus"
player rolls then gives you the result.
you do some pausing then say "ok you hit just like last time, so now you need to roll your damage and add your strength modifiers

every time
every turn
every character
no exceptions
even if it has been done before and before and before

that goes well huh?

keeps things fresh and exciting and the GM firmly with his pair of dice hanging big enough?

----

See, i get that on some cases there is a reason to smack a player around if they dare to not give the gm first and last senstence yes sir no sir three bags full sir.

But, if a character has done the "search action 100000 times in many different settings and had his Gm say "roll it this way" then i do not see the harm in a player saying "i search over there and my roll is..." and then *if* the Gm decides this is an exception to the rule saying what happens even if that is an interruption to the search or a search that failed to produce results for unspecified reasons.

Of course the Gm can decide "no roll needed" but then all he has to do is tell them the same thing as he does when they provide a roll, right? But if there was going to be a roll, its already done, time saved.

I can see this if there are so very many exceptions that the basic "here is what this skill allows" and "here is what this spell does" in the PHb are basically meaningless - in which case the player already knows he has no basis to go on.

 

[Severite]

I normally ignore the result, ask what they are trying to accomplish and how, and then call for a die roll, ignoring what they rolled the first time. Usually it only takes one or two times to get the message across, the most stubborn was my children, actually, and usually that is just because they are excited to be able to play.

 

[Shiroiken]

Did I miss something between AD&D (which I played as a kid) and 5E (my return to D&D two years ago) that made this alright?

I guess I'm looking for ways that other DMs deal with situations where players roll the dice for skills without being asked to do so. What say you?

First of all, welcome back! As an AD&D player myself, I understand the jarring nature between then and now. Playstyles have changed since back in the day, but fortunatly for you, they're starting to move back to the style of AD&D (minus the lethality and DM vs. Player mentality)

5E explicitly states that order of operations for any action are:

1) Player declares intent
2) DM considers probability of success/failure (calling for a check if outcome is uncertain)
3) DM narrates outcome

Any roll made without DM promoting is technically meaningless. I say technically only because in combat players automatically roll attack rolls without being prompted, because there is always uncertainty in combat (and why a 1 is always a miss). You are well within your right to ignore all results of rolls that are not prompted, and should probably do so. Not everything needs a check, as some things should be either automatic or impossible. Unlike in the last 2 editions, you can just quickly narrate the result of the action without needing dice.

 

[5ekyu]

I explain to the players that I only need them to state their goal and approach and to hold off on rolling because it is in their best interests.

See, I have to judge whether or not the approach is sufficient to achieve the goal. You might get an auto-success. So, the smart play in this situation in my view is to come up with a fun and reasonable approach to a goal for which you have a related proficiency (just in case you have to roll), then wait for the DM to make a ruling. Asking to roll or forcing a roll is asking for a chance for that d20 to screw you over and/or make you look stupid. It's sometimes funny, but it's not a great survival strategy. (And you don't need extra bad rolls to make the game funny.)

Always aim for auto-success, I say, and treat your skills as insurance against failure on the occasions when the DM calls for a check. In my experience, you will almost always be more successful than players who ask to make or force rolls.

Then I just ignore any rolls they make that I don't ask for. They catch on quick in my experience.

maybe i am misreading you but are you suggesting that a GM who has decided a taks is an auto-success would allow a low roll to result in failure? isn't an auto-success by definition "any roll works"?

how does rolling a die turn an auto-success into a failure?
is there a definition of auto-success that i am not aware of?

 

[5ekyu]

First of all, welcome back! As an AD&D player myself, I understand the jarring nature between then and now. Playstyles have changed since back in the day, but fortunatly for you, they're starting to move back to the style of AD&D (minus the lethality and DM vs. Player mentality)

5E explicitly states that order of operations for any action are:

1) Player declares intent
2) DM considers probability of success/failure (calling for a check if outcome is uncertain)
3) DM narrates outcome

Any roll made without DM promoting is technically meaningless. I say technically only because in combat players automatically roll attack rolls without being prompted, because there is always uncertainty in combat (and why a 1 is always a miss). You are well within your right to ignore all results of rolls that are not prompted, and should probably do so. Not everything needs a check, as some things should be either automatic or impossible. Unlike in the last 2 editions, you can just quickly narrate the result of the action without needing dice.

you are within your rights to ignore any roll - yes.

but, how does "the player rolled ahead" have any effect on the GM deciding whether the task was an auto-success or an auto-fail?

if it was an auto-fail, whatever the roll it fails.

if it was an auto-success, whatever the roll it succeeds.

if it was neither, the roll was made and we dont have the unnecessary delay.

if the roll was inappropriate to the situation, Gm can choose to describe what it did (but likely it was not what was expected) or treat it as a fail.

it seems that if the player has the dice and score there and a reasonable good faith understanding that this game has shown these kinds of checks apply here, that the player rolling as they state the intent/action/approach is just a time saver, not a punishable offense.

 

[Severite]

maybe i am misreading you but are you suggesting that a GM who has decided a taks is an auto-success would allow a low roll to result in failure? isn't an auto-success by definition "any roll works"?

how does rolling a die turn an auto-success into a failure?
is there a definition of auto-success that i am not aware of?

I understand that you are not asking of me, but for myself, if I was inclined to accept the rolls at all, I would absolutely take a low roll as a failure, even if I was not going to call for a roll in the first place. If I was going to declare that your outlander ranger, at 2nd level, was going to auto succeed at tying a knot for a snare, but then rolled under a 10 as a standard DC, I would then rule that a failure.

 

[Charlaquin]

There are a lot of factors that go into players doing this. Part of it is, players want to use the Skills their characters are good at. I was in a game once where our Druid had a really high bonus to her Nature skill, and was constantly asking “can I make a Nature check for that?” and “what do I find out with a Nature check of... *sound of dice rolling* 18?” Any time the DM started describing anything vaguely related to plants, you’d hear “Nature check! *sound of dice rolling* 23!” It got pretty annoying, but in all fairness, she just wanted to feel like her investment in that Skill had been worthwhile, and the DM wasn’t giving her many opportunities to utilize it. When you see this happening, it’s worth taking a moment to reflect, “am I giving this player enough opportunities to put their skills to good use?”

Another reason this happens is learned behavior from other DMs. I played in a game one with a DM who wouldn’t allow us to accomplish anything without some kind of roll, but would never call for checks himself. We’d be exploring dangerous wilderness and suddenly, out of nowhere, he’d spring a random encounter on us, and the monsters would get a surprise round. If you asked, “we didn’t hear any signs of them or anything?” he’d say “well, no one said they wanted to make a Perception check.” Or we’d be faced with a puzzle, and we’d be describing different ways we’re trying to interact with it, asking questions about what we saw, or what we could figure out. He’d completely stonewall us; “you can’t really tell,” “nothing seems to happen”, etc. After an absurdly long time on what should be a simple puzzle, he’d say “maybe you could try investigating.” I literally said “I thought that was what I was doing with all the questions, I didn’t realize the magic words were ‘I make an Investigation check.’” It honestly felt like a badly programmed text-based adventure game, where you have to guess what verb the computer is going to recognize as the appropriate command. Even worse was when the right answer would be hidden behind multiple consecutive checks, sometimes using the same skill. So, some players learn those habits from experiences like that.

Another DMing behavior that can drive players towards this habit is when the players can’t trust results that don’t come from the dice. Adversarial player/DM relationships can train players to use the dice as a shield, constantly trying to make checks because they know if they rolled well on a Perception check first, then the description will be reliable, whereas if they roll low or aren’t asked to make a check, it mean something might be hidden.

Ultimately, the solution is just to be straightforward with your players. Tell them, “You just tell me what your character is doing; if I’ll let you know if a check is necessary to determine the outcome.” If it keeps happening consistently, take them aside after the game or during a break and ask what’s going on. Maybe they just really want to use a certain skill, or maybe they feel insecure about describing actions and would rather interact through the game mechanics than the narrative. Maybe they don’t believe that you’re not hiding information if they don’t make enough checks. What ever the problem is, you'll have to talk it out with them and they’ll have to work to try and break the habit.

 

[ehren37]

Do you find this makes combat go better?

third round player standing next to boss and says " i want to hit him with my battle axe"
you say OK, that will be a take attack action so you will need to roll d20 and add your attack bonus"
player rolls then gives you the result.
you do some pausing then say "ok you hit just like last time, so now you need to roll your damage and add your strength modifiers

every time
every turn
every character
no exceptions
even if it has been done before and before and before

that goes well huh?

keeps things fresh and exciting and the GM firmly with his pair of dice hanging big enough?

----

See, i get that on some cases there is a reason to smack a player around if they dare to not give the gm first and last senstence yes sir no sir three bags full sir.

Agreed, after a certain point its just cutting out the middleman to say "hey, do I know anything about that spell? I got a 15 arcana). It's also nothing new, I had players do this in the 80's and likely did it plenty myself.

 

[5ekyu]

This'll sound harsh, but if I'm the DM doing this will very often result in failure - no matter what # you call out. Even if it was going to be a situation that didn't require dice rolls.

this may sound harsh but, if i were stuck in that game, every round, every action, i would describe what i want to do and not pick up a dice or look up a modifier until the Gm told me which specific dice to roll and which specific modifiers applied. if the Gm tells me he does not trust me to use the mechanics he has shown me outside of combat, i wont presume to know any better what happens inside of combat. that would be hubris. Fight takes an hour longer, no problem cuz we all know we dont know enough to predict rolls needed and the Gm will punish us for pre-rolling before he says so.

On someone else's point, not yours, if the player says i roll arcana and you want an insight check,why not just describe the results of the arcana check not the insight check, which likely are different things? The notion of them trying to fish out the skill they want only has any impact if *you* don't know the differences in what skills do, right?

i can decide to look up FORTRAN syntax in my Cookbooks, i just am not likely to get anything other than wasted time and a hankering for stuffed bell peppers topped with garlic ragu.

 

[5ekyu]

I understand that you are not asking of me, but for myself, if I was inclined to accept the rolls at all, I would absolutely take a low roll as a failure, even if I was not going to call for a roll in the first place. If I was going to declare that your outlander ranger, at 2nd level, was going to auto succeed at tying a knot for a snare, but then rolled under a 10 as a standard DC, I would then rule that a failure.

Why? Why did that action just become harder in your world?

Would it go the other way if you decided an action was impossible but he rolled high?

or is this just punishment being handed down?

i seriously want to know what is being gained by doing this?

 

[robus]

I understand that you are not asking of me, but for myself, if I was inclined to accept the rolls at all, I would absolutely take a low roll as a failure, even if I was not going to call for a roll in the first place. If I was going to declare that your outlander ranger, at 2nd level, was going to auto succeed at tying a knot for a snare, but then rolled under a 10 as a standard DC, I would then rule that a failure.

Are you punishing the player for rolling when it wasn’t needed then?

 

[robus]

Agreed, after a certain point its just cutting out the middleman to say "hey, do I know anything about that spell? I got a 15 arcana). It's also nothing new, I had players do this in the 80's and likely did it plenty myself.

Obviously combat is an exception to the general rule and the simple reason is every attack is uncertain in its outcome.

As far as knowledge checks go I let players with skill in arcana roll for that kind of knowledge, or just give it to them if it’s not too obscure. If you’re not skilled then you have to delve into your backstory for some reason you might know something. Spin me a good yarn and I might reward you

 

[robus]

maybe i am misreading you but are you suggesting that a GM who has decided a taks is an auto-success would allow a low roll to result in failure? isn't an auto-success by definition "any roll works"?

how does rolling a die turn an auto-success into a failure?
is there a definition of auto-success that i am not aware of?

You’ve misunderstood. If the task is auto-success there is no roll.