D&D 5E Players Self-Assigning Rolls

[Ristamar]

Telling me die rolls means I, as DM, have to determine the details of your approach. Having the player state and approach and goal and then the DM asking for a roll if the outcome is uncertain and fraught means there's never any 'but my character wouldn't have touched the alter when he investigated it' going on.

Just to add to this thought, a player's attempt to establish an approach post die roll will often be colored by the result. High rolls encourage bolder action while lower rolls naturally invite more caution.

 

[5ekyu]

Are you saying that dice rolling is "interruptive behavior?"



Again, and hopefully for the last time, I did not assert any causation. I pointed out something I see commonly in groups where players also make unprompted rolls and how players and DMs stepping out of their intended roles can be a detriment to the play experience. The lack of a statement of a goal and approach is what creates the vacuum in my view where the DM steps in to fill the player's role, not the unprompted rolling by players. But frequently, I'll see both.

Am i saying dice rolling is interruptive behavior... No but it can be just like description can be, just like narrative can be.

"Intertuptive behavior" is defined by when it is done in context of the play not what is being done.

But again correlation is a bad thing to use for many cases.

In most narrative heavy games i have seen (vs narrative balanced or mechanics heavy) there has been a correlation with some players monopolizing most of the screen time because the "give good story" or keep stepping up to be the guy talking etc... Again, correlation. Can happen elsewhere.

There may be some slight causation there if the game being played rewards mechanically "giving good story" and "more screen time" by things like "fun points or cool point" or even "cool talk auto succeed" that can be earned when you are active in a scene.

Contrast to more mechanics heavy games where the mechanics tend to have rules which control timeflow and everybody gets a turn in many cases. In some of those, maybe a conversation challenge is not so much as a few sentences and a roll.

I dont see eother of those as tied to the game style per se, so i dont hold either against the concept of shared rolls vs monopoly rolls games.

Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app

 

[iserith]

Am i saying dice rolling is interruptive behavior... No but it can be just like description can be, just like narrative can be.

"Intertuptive behavior" is defined by when it is done in context of the play not what is being done.

But again correlation is a bad thing to use for many cases.

In most narrative heavy games i have seen (vs narrative balanced or mechanics heavy) there has been a correlation with some players monopolizing most of the screen time because the "give good story" or keep stepping up to be the guy talking etc... Again, correlation. Can happen elsewhere.

There may be some slight causation there if the game being played rewards mechanically "giving good story" and "more screen time" by things like "fun points or cool point" or even "cool talk auto succeed" that can be earned when you are active in a scene.

Contrast to more mechanics heavy games where the mechanics tend to have rules which control timeflow and everybody gets a turn in many cases. In some of those, maybe a conversation challenge is not so much as a few sentences and a roll.

I dont see eother of those as tied to the game style per se, so i dont hold either against the concept of shared rolls vs monopoly rolls games.

Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app

I'm apparently not the only one who notices that games where players asking to make or making unprompted rolls often have players failing to state a clear goal and approach. Regardless of whether there is causation, it appears to be a fairly common thing in our hobby, even in some popular vodcasts. Again, I'm only pointing that out as an observation, not a conclusion that players making unprompted rolls necessarily results in a curtailment of stating a goal and approach or vice versa.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm apparently not the only one who notices that games where players asking to make or making unprompted rolls often have players failing to state a clear goal and approach. Regardless of whether there is causation, it appears to be a fairly common thing in our hobby, even in some popular vodcasts. Again, I'm only pointing that out as an observation, not a conclusion that players making unprompted rolls necessarily results in a curtailment of stating a goal and approach or vice versa.

Right, player declared rolls doesn't prevent clearly stated approach and goal. But, it doesn't incentivize them, either, and has a slight incentive to be as vague as possible in approach. Unless the DM is insisting upon clearly stated approach and goals with the player declared goal, of course.

 

[iserith]

Right, player declared rolls doesn't prevent clearly stated approach and goal. But, it doesn't incentivize them, either, and has a slight incentive to be as vague as possible in approach. Unless the DM is insisting upon clearly stated approach and goals with the player declared goal, of course.

Would that slight incentive be to avoid situations where the DM rules automatic failure for a given approach to a goal? Or something else?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Would that slight incentive be to avoid situations where the DM rules automatic failure for a given approach to a goal? Or something else?

Pretty much. If I gain nothing by adding specifics to my approach under the assumption that a high roll will require the DM to narrate a success, then adding information that might unintentionally preclude such a success is counter-indicated. I'm better off pushing the work of defining the approach onto the DM.

Of course, the DM may chose an unwise approach for me, but then I get to complain that the DM isn't being fair -- when I intentionally offloaded all such decisions about my approach to the DM by just declaring a skill and a check result.

This is one of the things that led me to start disallowing player declared rolls -- I didn't want that responsibility and the resultant blame on my shoulders. To compensate, I don't run gotchas that aren't extensively telegraphed. So far, every time a player has been hit with a gotcha, everyone at the table immediately recognizes that they had plenty of information about that event leading up to the result.

Example: the party is investigating a bog that has a series of small islands linked by rotting boards. They've examined every board so far and determined they're in bad shape, but safe enough for 1 person to walk on at a time, no checks needed (the character checking is proficient in carpenter's tools, so I ruled it automatic he could judge the strength of the timber). Until a fight breaks out and a character runs across a board that hasn't been checked. I ask for a wisdom check before his steps out and he fails (DC was set at 10 due to the rushed conditions and not closely examining the board) and so doesn't realize this board is rotten through until it dumps him into the water. No one complained because rotting boards were established as a setting piece already. In fact, it was an amusing moment that increased tension a bit as now that character couldn't get to the party member he was on the way to assist that round.

 

[iserith]

Pretty much. If I gain nothing by adding specifics to my approach under the assumption that a high roll will require the DM to narrate a success, then adding information that might unintentionally preclude such a success is counter-indicated. I'm better off pushing the work of defining the approach onto the DM.

Of course, the DM may chose an unwise approach for me, but then I get to complain that the DM isn't being fair -- when I intentionally offloaded all such decisions about my approach to the DM by just declaring a skill and a check result.

This is one of the things that led me to start disallowing player declared rolls -- I didn't want that responsibility and the resultant blame on my shoulders. To compensate, I don't run gotchas that aren't extensively telegraphed. So far, every time a player has been hit with a gotcha, everyone at the table immediately recognizes that they had plenty of information about that event leading up to the result.

Example: the party is investigating a bog that has a series of small islands linked by rotting boards. They've examined every board so far and determined they're in bad shape, but safe enough for 1 person to walk on at a time, no checks needed (the character checking is proficient in carpenter's tools, so I ruled it automatic he could judge the strength of the timber). Until a fight breaks out and a character runs across a board that hasn't been checked. I ask for a wisdom check before his steps out and he fails (DC was set at 10 due to the rushed conditions and not closely examining the board) and so doesn't realize this board is rotten through until it dumps him into the water. No one complained because rotting boards were established as a setting piece already. In fact, it was an amusing moment that increased tension a bit as now that character couldn't get to the party member he was on the way to assist that round.

Good example and conclusions. I was thinking I also see it a lot when the expected response from the DM is typically "No" to just about anything the players suggest UNLESS there is some kind of mechanical, rules-based justification. So pushing mechanics on the player side is a way to get the DM to go along. And once the players realize that, then they don't need to spend time thinking too much about approach to a goal and just push mechanics.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Good example and conclusions. I was thinking I also see it a lot when the expected response from the DM is typically "No" to just about anything the players suggest UNLESS there is some kind of mechanical, rules-based justification. So pushing mechanics on the player side is a way to get the DM to go along. And once the players realize that, then they don't need to spend time thinking too much about approach to a goal and just push mechanics.

I think I've played with that DM. Briefly.

 

[Charlaquin]

Good example and conclusions. I was thinking I also see it a lot when the expected response from the DM is typically "No" to just about anything the players suggest UNLESS there is some kind of mechanical, rules-based justification. So pushing mechanics on the player side is a way to get the DM to go along. And once the players realize that, then they don't need to spend time thinking too much about approach to a goal and just push mechanics.

I think I've played with that DM. Briefly.

Me too. That was the one from my example way back on page 2.
“I examine the paths of the pipes to see if I can find a pattern that would indicate which valves will direct the water flow away from the door.”
“You can’t find any pattern.”
“*sigh* I make an Investigation check. 16.”
“You figure out that if you turn two valves on the left side and one on the right, it should redirect the flow.”

^^^
Not the exact wording, but a real example of something that happened in that game.

 

[5ekyu]

My experience is exactly opposite: allowing player declared rolls meant that there was a reward mechanism for interrupting with a roll to gain more knowledge or effect a solution to a problem more quickly. Not allowing them has meant, for me, fewer interruption when I'm setting the scene or describing a new development -- my players have learned that more information is being provided if they listen, and even more on a clearly stated approach.

Further, and this is a point, if my players have to declare an approach and goal instead of just a die roll, there's less interpretation on my part as DM. For example, let's say there's an altar to an evil god that will explode with necrotic energy if touched by a non-worshiper. There's a big point of different to a player declaring they're closely inspecting the alter, but not touching it, to see if there's anything special about it vs a "21 Investigate!" The former nets information without danger, the latter is up to me as DM if I think a "21 Investigate!" means you touched the altar or not. And, if there's a secret compartment that can be found via physical interaction but not via looking, the "21 Investigate!" player might be upset if I decide they don't touch the altar but also don't find the secret compartment, provided, of course, it's found through other actions later.

Telling me die rolls means I, as DM, have to determine the details of your approach. Having the player state and approach and goal and then the DM asking for a roll if the outcome is uncertain and fraught means there's never any 'but my character wouldn't have touched the alter when he investigated it' going on.

ETA: and @iserth said this earlier and more succinctly, and I missed it.

GM is describing alter and...
1 - player says "i want to examine the altar"
2 - Player says "i want to examine the altar and i rolled int lore 21"
3 - Player says "i examine the alter and i rolled int religion 21"
4 Player says "i want to examine the alter and i rolled wis perception 21"

Now, i know it might come as a shock to may here but, all four of those are disruptive, not just the ones where the dice hit the table.

Really, they are.

Secondly, I know it might come as a shock but, all four of them have insufficient information. As a Gm i would ask a leading question for all before giving a response. (Maybe some will say in cases where dice are not touched they players never ever provideinsufficient info on their first description, but thats not my experience.)

Thirdly, I know it might come as a surprise to some but the cases with the dice rolled actually DID provide more information - about goal and about technique because by identifying the skill and proficiency used the gM knows what that skill and ability can provide as well as the ability being used.

Fort example, if one were to proceed from there to resolution, I would make per check generally descriptive, showing things like how much its looks to have been tended how old it looks etc from where they are. if it was the lore i would work off the notion of what general knowledge would saay about this area, how long ago temples were built etc. if it were religion, i would describe the symbols, trappings and what gods or kinds of gods or spirits the pchartacter could recognize.

Again, all from where they are there.

However, my general response to that would be to, nod in there direction and continue my description and once i got to "player action" stage deal with their inquiry. Then after the session if this showed as a regular thing, i would remind them individually that its best not to interrupt any other players if its not an emergency. thats just rude behavior.

 

[Charlaquin]

OK so a few things and a serious disconnect from me on this...

First, this is not language police but it actually impacts meaning, where you said "roles" and i underlined it in that first graph, i think you meant to say ROLLS, as in if the players assign their own ROLLS they need to understand etc.

I am procreeding with that.

Yes, that was a typo. It should have said rolls. I post from my phone a lot.

But here is why i think you are incorrect about the players no needing to know which mechanics apply to which actions... they built the character.

Unless they do not have character sheets, unless they dont have to go thru chargen of any serious degree of crunchy spending bits, then they **NEED** to know those mechanics in order to know the results of this choice vs that choice.

"Saxon is a great medic" and assigning low wis and no skill in healing are contradictory, a conflict between description and mechanics that will show in play when it comes time to determine an actual result for that effort by that character.

Character creation only happens outside the game, so players can consult the DM, the book, or more experienced players for help in understanding how to mechanically express the character they want to play. Have you never walked a new player through character creation before? It’s pretty easy.

Similarly, in play trying to get the out of the gaol cell deciding between(describing) using a "muscle approach" (force bars ),a "dextrous approach" (lock pick) and a skilled approach (masonry) or others its a practical necessity for the player to have a clue which of his abilities should apply and really what they are.

No mechanical knowledge necessary for that. You know you made a character who is physically strong. You probably don’t need the DM’s help to know that a high Strength score and proficiency in the Athletics skill would help express that mechanically, but if you do, they’ll help you. Then in-game, describe your character doing things that strong people would do if you want to take advantage of your character being strong. It’s really not difficult.

Someone else describe the role of mechanics in resolving situations of thing, their hope, was to have them basically fade into the background while the description and interactions flow, with the players not thinking about their characters abilities and mechanics.

That was me.

What i want is for them to absolutely keep those mechanics and abilities in mind *as* they choose their actions and select their approachs and work in the scene and show it through their description.

i want the *mason* to have *masonry proficiency* and to be the one who suggests and tries the "stonework to weak bars" approach as he describes his character's choices and i don't want the dexterous guy with lock skills to be the one trying to force the door and i really don't want the described "muscle guy" (who actually has an 8 strength cuz, you know, no reason for player to know) to be the one to try the masonry angle without the actual mason involved.

Ok. You’re welcome to run your games in a way that facilitates that. You and I want different things out of our games, there’s nothing wrong with that.

One character attempt intimidate the guard by being big, beefy and pushing up against them while another just stares calmly while sharpening his knife and whistling in a odd sort of way. They players should choose those approaches for their characters base on not a *lack* of knowledge of their strengths, weaknesses and how those apply to the situation but on accurate knowledge of those things.

Lack of knowledge of the specific mechanics required to resolve an action is not the same thing as lack of knowledge of your character’s strengths and weaknesses. You don’t have to know the specifics of the uses for Strength vs. Charisma to know that your beefy fighter is going to have better luck trying to scare someone by flexing his muscles than by staring someone down, or that your ruthless assassin who relies more on theatricality and deception than brute force will have an easier time frightening someone with subtlety than direct physical threats.

As i have said, for various games where the detail and crunch and mechanics are built in to be mostly narrative and where honeslty "screen time" is an actual gameplay element and "hit points" really is not, the idea that you dont need to know mechanics of actions is great but for a game like this one where you do spend a lot of time on builds, on chargen and where at a moment's notice your mechanics can be called in and determine the outcome, the idea that players don't need to know this enough so that *often* they get it wrong is a very bad marriage of game system and gameplay. if and when a scene "goes to the dice" having that player not aware of how that scene will use their stats, not know whether this was good choice or bad choice, and having that player "often" surprised by the outcome... is just a hindrance to roleplaying.

My players are not “often” surprised by the outcomes of their actions, because they describe their actions and the world responds in internally consistent ways. They can reliably predict what the outcome of an action will be because the first step in resolving any action is that I consider what effect this might have on the world and how likely that is to bring about the desired outcome. The dice come in when it’s not otherwise obvious what the result will be. By simply imagining themselves, or a person like the one they’ve created to roleplay as, in the situation described and considering what they or that character would do, they can get a pretty good idea what the results of their actions will be.

In my games, R-P-G all play a roll and mostly an equal role.

ROLE is running the character to suit the charater you wanted and you built and having that chracter's mechanics match those.
PLAY is your making choices that fit your character and his personality and his past and his aptitudes and weakness reflected in both the mechanics and the choices and the expectations of results.
GAME is having the mechanics of resolution and success fail all tie together with the other things, with the decisions and choices, with the setting and scene and the narrative.

And as stated before, it is not either/or for "die roll vs description. What i am referring to is what my players do and what i have seen other players do again and again, choose character actions, describe character actions and interact with a scene keeping their character's actual definitions in mind and then rolling dice at the appropriate time they choose, with of course Gm having full option to veto or adjust as needed.

Neat. In my games, roleplay and game are not separate things. It’s a game that you play by imagining yourself as a different person or in a different situation and making decisions as you think you or that other person would in that situation. You know, roleplaying. The mechanics are the way the game resolves the outcomes of your decisions, which means that assessing how these decisions are likely to affect the scenario you imagine yourself in is an essential part of the mechanics. But as a person playing the game, it is not essential for you to understand exactly how those mechanics work. Just like when you’re playing a roleplaying video game like Elder Scrolls or The Witcher, you don’t need to understand the game’s programming to play the game effectively. I know that if I want to be good at using big swords in Skyrim, I should use big swords a lot. I know that without needing to understand the exact calculations the computer is making to figure out how much damage I do to a mudcrab when I swing my big sword at it.

Consider this...

There is a discussion between a player and an NPC. The player is trying to sway the NPC in their favor. The discussion goes back and forth. The discussion has ebbs and flows. The outcome in uncertain.

I have no problem with the player at some point of his choosing to pick up his dice and basically decide to "call scene" on a high point, on a good line from him, and making the roll then and there. Sure, we could have continued that dialog for another 10m or 20m or whatever and it could have been fun etc but its not *me* and me alone who gets to decide "the editing" of that in my games... and letting the player decide to make that the point they want to roll is not something i have a problem with.

That is *not* the same of course as saying "and thats it, give me an answer now." and in game cutting the talk short. That is a different thing which lets the "act" itself play into the resolution of the scene.

That’s not how I run social interaction scenes at all. Just like with other actions, I consider what the players say and if those things would have a reasonable chance of swaying the NPC’s opinion, a reasonable chance of failing to sway their opinion, and a chance of making that NPC more hostile. I ask the player to make rolls when the NPC’s reaction is uncertain.

Not everyone would like giving the player that "creative control" over their scenes, that is for sure.

Sure. Different playstyles for different people.

In my experience, i find not having one standard of expectation for player choices and knowledge of mechanics and use of mechanics for combat resolution (i choose to use my axe because thats where i am best) and a completely different one for out-of-combat challenges does not serve the roleplaying game experience well for me and those i have seen.

I have no such expectation about players in my games understanding the mechanics of combat. Have you never run for new players before? It’s pretty easy to resolve a combat even with players who aren’t familiar with the rules. If the player describes what their character is doing, I can easily tell them what they need to roll to resolve that action. Players tend to catch on to the rules of combat pretty quickly, mainly because there’s a lot of uncertainty in combat, so the dice get involved a lot, so players who are interested in learning those mechanics can easily figure them out if they pay attention. And players knowing the rules of combat doesn’t get in the way for me, nor does players knowing any of the rules. It just doesn’t matter to me one way or the other.

I have a player who has been in my games for years. Still doesn’t know the rules of D&D. Because he has no interest in learning them. And that’s fine! He tells me what kind of character he wants to play, I help him translate that into a character sheet, and for the rest of the game, he tells me what he wants to do, and I tell him what dice to roll. He’s perfectly happy with that arrangement, he gets to imagine himself as a hero in a fantasy world and make decisions like that hero would, and he doesn’t have to get bogged down with a bunch of math he finds boring. I have another player who loves the rules minutia and we talk shop all the time. She enjoys digging deep into the rule books, understanding all the little interactions, building highly optimized characters, and all that stuff. She’s never had a problem in my games either. She knows what the different skills and abilities do, and how to get the results she wants. Player knowledge of the rules doesn’t positively or negatively impact their experience in my games, unless that player tries to use the rules to circumvent roleplaying.

 

[Ovinomancer]

GM is describing alter and...
1 - player says "i want to examine the altar"
2 - Player says "i want to examine the altar and i rolled int lore 21"
3 - Player says "i examine the alter and i rolled int religion 21"
4 Player says "i want to examine the alter and i rolled wis perception 21"

Now, i know it might come as a shock to may here but, all four of those are disruptive, not just the ones where the dice hit the table.

Really, they are.

Sure, no one's claiming otherwise.

Secondly, I know it might come as a shock but, all four of them have insufficient information. As a Gm i would ask a leading question for all before giving a response. (Maybe some will say in cases where dice are not touched they players never ever provideinsufficient info on their first description, but thats not my experience.)

Well, I'm not shocked at all because they all do have insufficient information. They're all incomplete approaches and none of them have a stated goal.

Thirdly, I know it might come as a surprise to some but the cases with the dice rolled actually DID provide more information - about goal and about technique because by identifying the skill and proficiency used the gM knows what that skill and ability can provide as well as the ability being used.

It is actually a surprise that you think the die roll declarations espouse a goal rather than a bit more of an approach. All of them have the same vague goal of examining the altar. "For what purpose," is the question none of them answer. I don't know if you're looking for dangerous things, further information, treasure, all three or none of the above. I can guess, yes, but that's really putting the player into a bad spot, isn't it -- I mean, I'd rather not have the DM guessing what I'm trying to accomplish.

Fort example, if one were to proceed from there to resolution, I would make per check generally descriptive, showing things like how much its looks to have been tended how old it looks etc from where they are.

Pardon, but you should have already provided that. This is a large part of the things I'm trying to avoid: unnecessarily gating information behind 'guess the right skill check' and success.

if it was the lore i would work off the notion of what general knowledge would saay about this area, how long ago temples were built etc. if it were religion, i would describe the symbols, trappings and what gods or kinds of gods or spirits the pchartacter could recognize.

Again, I'd provide that kind of general information for free to those players with proficiency in those skills. Those aren't interesting problems to overcome, it's set dressing, and set dressing should be free.

Recall, the real problem with the altar is that is has a secret compartment with treasure in it, but touching it causes a negative energy explosion. Rather than dance around answering random skill checks with information about the alter that doesn't get at the actual challenge, I'm just going to provide that information for free and openly and only have checks for things that engage the challenge of the altar.

Again, all from where they are there.

However, my general response to that would be to, nod in there direction and continue my description and once i got to "player action" stage deal with their inquiry. Then after the session if this showed as a regular thing, i would remind them individually that its best not to interrupt any other players if its not an emergency. thats just rude behavior.

Again, no one's arguing that interrupting is rude behavior. If you think you're educating the rest of us about this basic point of etiquette, I have bad news for you.

 

[5ekyu]

Good example and conclusions. I was thinking I also see it a lot when the expected response from the DM is typically "No" to just about anything the players suggest UNLESS there is some kind of mechanical, rules-based justification. So pushing mechanics on the player side is a way to get the DM to go along. And once the players realize that, then they don't need to spend time thinking too much about approach to a goal and just push mechanics.

i have had gms who did that... like i said had to roll to use phone book in TRAVELLER once... only once. Did not return for next session.

But games like that of sorts were described in the role of the dice portion. some games use mechanics very heavily. personally not so much my cup of tea but i have played them,

But i have also played in many games where narrative and mechanics go hand-in-hand -in-glove.

In my game, i typically have things "scoped out" in a sort of "gold-silver-bronze" breakdown.

DEFAULT stuff are there for just showing up... this is where the ESSENTIAL info will be, the clues needed to just have the story move. There will be ample clues from at least three directions for each of these. These will be basically automatic.
BRONZE will be there for basic expected efforts, following the suggestion to go talk to troll-killer bob, chatting with the lawman, etc. these will usually be usually pivotal in helping the party frame their direction, but not strictly necessary.

So, DEFAULT and BRONZE need no dice rolls, just players engaging the story.

SILVER is where the players make additional effort and utilize their strengths to get more info, more details, more help or whatever and gain a moderate degree of success on what amount to rather mundane roll difficulties. "Convince Troll-Killer" to loan us his maps of the warrens to the south by getting on his good side." now, sometimes that might be done by deed "we do him a favor" or sometimes it can be done with engaging conversation that shows him how it would be a good thing. The former would involve a scene or two, maybe even an action one, or maybe just repairs (and likely as not mechanics on some level.) The latter would again be a "scene" of them drinking etc but with a check to see how it turned out. this is not going to be a case where weplay out the whole night's chat over drinks of course.

GOLD is where you get to much more difficult efforts and challenges to gain even more result. maybe you are breaking into the temple or maybe you are pushing troll-killer to join you etc or maybe you spend more time there and do bob several favors.

In this case, the skill checks at the appropriate points align with the characters efforts and the combo can yield additional gains. But the key aspect is these are, for my games, intended to be extra gains, not MANDATORY elements.

As you can see, the "stakes of failure" are not loss of something you have or a new setback (which some seem to think necessary for a roll) but the loss of time and lack of gain.

one of the reasons i use this approach and insist on having mechanics and narrative and choices go hand in hand in my games is that i have seen a lot of times, in various games mine and others, where a player will narrate a great scene and great doings for his character that, frankly, are out of line with the character's stats. The most egregious case is the case where the player is a well spoken fellow but his character has minimal social skills (say average or sometimes even negative.) in many cases, i have seen GMs reward that average character with better social results than a correspondingly well skills character played by a rather quiet player.

I bet some of you can imagine giving a player advantage on rolls if he describes a good social scene, right? Well i consider that advantage on a straight D20 check is a pretty strong modifier against say a what a skilled character with less skilled player might get on the character (51% chance of success for DC15 is right at the same as +4 from skills and attributes total.)

meanwhile, a little later in combat, that "average social player. they reap the mechanical reward directly from their +2 in something else and the socially skilled character sees some drawbacks.

thats why i never want to see mechanics "pushed to the side" any more than i want to see them "the only thing that matters."

it encourages and rewards the skew between player capability and character capability when your performance takes stage and your character sits backstage.

There is good and bad back and forth safeties and pitfalls with any approach.

 

[Charlaquin]

Recall, the real problem with the altar is that is has a secret compartment with treasure in it, but touching it causes a negative energy explosion. Rather than dance around answering random skill checks with information about the alter that doesn't get at the actual challenge, I'm just going to provide that information for free and openly and only have checks for things that engage the challenge of the altar..

And you'd be all like, "get ye flask", and it'd say "You can't get ye flask", and you'd just have to sit there and imagine why on Earth you can't get ye flask! Because the game's certainly not going to tell you.

 

[5ekyu]

It is actually a surprise that you think the die roll declarations espouse a goal rather than a bit more of an approach. All of them have the same vague goal of examining the altar. "For what purpose," is the question none of them answer. I don't know if you're looking for dangerous things, further information, treasure, all three or none of the above. I can guess, yes, but that's really putting the player into a bad spot, isn't it -- I mean, I'd rather not have the DM guessing what I'm trying to accomplish.
Pardon, but you should have already provided that. This is a large part of the things I'm trying to avoid: unnecessarily gating information behind 'guess the right skill check' and success.

Well for me "what you want to find" and "what you find" have very little to do with each others, although i will admit in some cases one can influence the other.

if you take a thermometer and say i want to try and figure out the barometric pressure with it - i will give you temp readings not pressures. Similarly if you give me a strength -intimidate check i am gonna give you the results for throwing your weight around.

The player giving me the check *is* giving me info that i can use and i can use that without a lot of unnecessary presuming. or i can ask for more info before resolving that roll.

And i am not sure you may be misunderstanding this but... this is not guess the right skill check. Neither i nor anybody else has argued for "only players call for skills" or "player have to assign skills for rolls". A player who wants to just describe his action then wait for Gm to tell him results and/or rolls to make is fine with that.

So, i am not sure where you got this as a guessing game for the players.

Certainly not more than in games where they are not supposed to have their character mechanics involved in their narration and decisions.

that may be one disconnect in general... this isn't "take away gm called rolls" but "share call for rolls with players."

Maybe that got lost?

 

[5ekyu]

Recall, the real problem with the altar is that is has a secret compartment with treasure in it, but touching it causes a negative energy explosion. Rather than dance around answering random skill checks with information about the alter that doesn't get at the actual challenge, I'm just going to provide that information for free and openly and only have checks for things that engage the challenge of the altar.

See, there is a key difference and it likely covers a lot of area too.

i don't see "the challenge is..." i see the scene.

I do not see this in my head as if it is a module for points and this is a "if this then xp" type puzzle.

this is another piece in my world that the players can interact with and we all can enjoy.

Specifically, if they choose to just give it a wide berth, thats fine. That may cost them.

if they choose to lookbat it from an arcane or religious or practical or other bent that can help them perhaps in that path.

often, so many many many times in fact, they come away from a scene with something i did not plan at all, because during the scene they did something or put together something or used an ability i had not thought about and it rewarded them for it.

its like that point in writing when the character tells the author "nope thats wrong should be this" only it happens a lot mre often and i embrace it rather than have it be "this is the challenge..." and then wait for them to narrate or roll their way through it.

Some indie games exploit this principle to the strongest level - the SEARCH ROLL is not a test of character success or fail as much as it is a test of WAS THERE SOMETHING THERE TO FIND. its a recognition that its "our world" not "my world" and that just like a fighter with an 18 strength and a greataxe leaves his mark on a combat scene without me having to "setup things for him" the character with similarly exceptional search skills should be equally as "influential."

Anyway, just a thought.

 

[iserith]

i have had gms who did that... like i said had to roll to use phone book in TRAVELLER once... only once. Did not return for next session.

But games like that of sorts were described in the role of the dice portion. some games use mechanics very heavily. personally not so much my cup of tea but i have played them,

What I described (and you quoted) and what other posters shared about their experience with such DMs is something I would consider dysfunctional and not actually in line with the "Role of the Dice" discussion in the DMG. What we discussed was a DM not performing his or her role in adjudicating a description of what the player wanted into a result or a call for a check followed by a result. Rather, the DM was saying "No," effectively, unless and until the player established uncertainty on his or her own and rolled the dice.

"The answer is 'No' until you back up your description with an unprompted roll..." is different from "Most actions will be uncertain, so expect to roll more often than not..." The latter is what the DMG is referring to.

But i have also played in many games where narrative and mechanics go hand-in-hand -in-glove.

The basic rules of the game in which the DM describes the environment, the players describe what they want to do, and the DM narrates the results of the adventurers actions, sometimes calling for a check when the outcome is uncertain and there's a meaningful consequence of failure is what I would consider the "narrative" going "hand in hand" with the mechanics. That is the core mechanic, the basic conversation of the game. We mess with that at our own peril.

one of the reasons i use this approach and insist on having mechanics and narrative and choices go hand in hand in my games is that i have seen a lot of times, in various games mine and others, where a player will narrate a great scene and great doings for his character that, frankly, are out of line with the character's stats. The most egregious case is the case where the player is a well spoken fellow but his character has minimal social skills (say average or sometimes even negative.) in many cases, i have seen GMs reward that average character with better social results than a correspondingly well skills character played by a rather quiet player.

Yes, this is a very common objection we see here on the forums. It comes up over and over. The problem, to the extent it is one at the table, is the DM is not boiling down the well-spoken fellow's speech (or whatever) down to a goal and approach which I would say is the thing the DM is supposed to be judging. The thespian who gives a stirring speech about the king's noble lineage to persuade the monarch to help with some problem or another and the player says "I give a speech about the king's noble lineage to persuade him to help..." should be getting the same chance of success in my view.

I don't care what a character's stats are and pay no mind to whether a player is playing to those ability scores in a manner I would choose to do. It's none of my business as DM as I see it. I only care about the stated goal and approach relative to the context of the situation because that is all I'm tasked with adjudicating in my role.

I bet some of you can imagine giving a player advantage on rolls if he describes a good social scene, right?

No, for the reasons stated. If a player wants to get advantage in a social interaction challenge, he or she has many options though such as stating a goal and approach that speaks to the NPC's personal characteristics (trait, ideal, bond, flaw), spending Inspiration, or using some other applicable resource.

 

[MaximusArael020]

Ha! Amazing "Strong Bad" quote. How does he type with boxing gloves on?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Well for me "what you want to find" and "what you find" have very little to do with each others, although i will admit in some cases one can influence the other.

if you take a thermometer and say i want to try and figure out the barometric pressure with it - i will give you temp readings not pressures. Similarly if you give me a strength -intimidate check i am gonna give you the results for throwing your weight around.

Do you find that supposing ridiculous and unmade arguments for others which you then defeat handily actually works for you? Personally, I like addressing others like they're intelligent people and not the kind of people that would think 'hurr, I'm gonna use this thermyometer thingie to scare that balrogy guy!' For starters, they appreciate not being compared to idiots, and secondly, it actually advances the conversation.

The player giving me the check *is* giving me info that i can use and i can use that without a lot of unnecessary presuming. or i can ask for more info before resolving that roll.

Right -- either I assume I know what they mean or I have to stop and ask them what they mean.

You do see the point, here, right? My method makes it clear that the players have to supply an approach and a goal, for which I will provide the necessary resolution mechanic. The 'announce a roll' means that now I have to negotiate those things with the player with the resolution result already known. If they rolled a 1, what happens then? Are they going to negotiate an approach that isn't 'well, I did that standing waaaaay over here, which is probably why I didn't see anything?' If they do, then you have players that enjoy knowingly placing themselves into failure positions. Not everyone's like that.

And i am not sure you may be misunderstanding this but... this is not guess the right skill check. Neither i nor anybody else has argued for "only players call for skills" or "player have to assign skills for rolls". A player who wants to just describe his action then wait for Gm to tell him results and/or rolls to make is fine with that.

So, i am not sure where you got this as a guessing game for the players.

You gave an example of 3 skill checks, all of them different only in the skill names. The results were largely similar -- vaguely interesting backstory about the altar and what it looks like and which cult might use it. None of which get to the challenge presented by the altar, which is get the treasure with a minimum of ouches.

So, yeah, they're all guessing skill checks hoping to find out what the actual challenge may be. So far, in your responses, you haven't given them any information on the actual challenge and instead have provided backstory and framing.

Certainly not more than in games where they are not supposed to have their character mechanics involved in their narration and decisions.

I thought I had made it clear already that all of the answers you provided for those guessed checks would have been provided for free and in the clear without a single check, and likely without a question, made. This is because I assume that Indiana Jones doesn't need to make a check to recognize an Aztec artifact -- he just knows. He needs to make a check to avoid the traps around the Aztec artifact, because that's the interesting bits. I treat my party like their competent and don't hide information behind 'guess the gate' skill checks.

Also, I'm going to clearly state the challenge -- the altar will be visibly pulsing with a not-light and a distinctly cold and greasy feel to the air near it. The party will know that the altar contains something they need already -- it's likely the reason they're here, after all. The challenge will be to identify what the altar will do and where the something is hidden inside the altar. Saying "I roll religion, got a 21!" is you guessing religion will tell you something useful, and now I have to guess what it is you think you're trying to find out. Maybe it's easy to guess, maybe it's not, I don't know (and we have a specific phenomenon of extremely strange and outlandish plans named after a member of my group -- if we say someone is pulling a Bob (name changed to protect the guilty), we all know exactly what that means -- they have a plan that could be described charitably as outlandishly weird).

And, sure, I can then engage in finding out what they want, but, if, after that, religion doesn't help because it doesn't provide any more information that was already provided at the outset (because, natch, I knew they were proficient in religion), then that's wasted time. Time that could have been avoided entirely by having them state their intention and goal ahead of time and then picking an appropriate check. If the goal is to look for clues to what the altar will do, and I know there are runes etched that power the ability, maybe the best check is an INT check to decipher them? And, maybe religion is an appropriate proficiency for that check? But so might arcana or history be. So, rather than dealing with three announced rolls from three players in three different ways, no one rolls until I've set an ability and consequence.

And I strongly believe there should be a consequence for every roll. In this case, I'd probably have a failed roll identify that the altar will react badly if the secret compartment is manipulated. This doesn't identify the energy type of the trap and falsely interprets the actual trigger mechanism, which is simply touching the altar. The next stated action may have very bad consequences because of this failed roll. And, best part, no one had to guess anything.

that may be one disconnect in general... this isn't "take away gm called rolls" but "share call for rolls with players."

Maybe that got lost?

No, because I never assumed your position was that the DM couldn't ever call for a roll. I correctly understood it as players can call for their own rolls. Given as how I've never made any argument that implied the DM could also call for rolls and have only addressed the rolls called for by players, I'm not sure what led you to believe I might misunderstand this point.

 

[Ovinomancer]

See, there is a key difference and it likely covers a lot of area too.

i don't see "the challenge is..." i see the scene.

Scenes that do not have challenges aren't really worth time to play out, are they? Do you often have zero conflict scenes? What happens in those scenes?

I do not see this in my head as if it is a module for points and this is a "if this then xp" type puzzle.

Well, that's a relief! I thought I might be the only one that didn't see this in my head as if it is a module for points and this is a "if this then xp" type puzzle.

I'm glad there are at least two of us. Anyone else on this train?

this is another piece in my world that the players can interact with and we all can enjoy.

Me, too! This is uncanny!

Specifically, if they choose to just give it a wide berth, thats fine. That may cost them.

You know, I was just thinking that I was the only person that might accept the players giving something dangerous or unknown a wide berth. I was afraid that you might actually force them to interact with it and not give them a choice in the matter. Imagine how embarrassed I am right now, since you've put that to bed. Gosh, I feel bad for assuming that you'd not allow your players to avoid things like this. Very sorry.

if they choose to lookbat it from an arcane or religious or practical or other bent that can help them perhaps in that path.

I... I don't know what you mean by this. It's just over my head. I mean, I understand looking at things in a practical bent, but I'm not sure which path we're going down. Are there ponies?

often, so many many many times in fact, they come away from a scene with something i did not plan at all, because during the scene they did something or put together something or used an ability i had not thought about and it rewarded them for it.

Holy cow! I thought I was the only one that.... you know what, I'm a bit tired of the 'sarcastically point out the strawman' game, so i'm going to stop. Apologies.

Nothing in my method prevents players from doing surprising things. Actually, I find it happens even more often now that I ask for intent and approach up front. I've been known to change something on the fly because a stated approach and goal implicates a situation way cooler than the one I had thought of. I'm not more creative than the sum of my players, and I'm not prideful enough to not steal wantonly from their best ideas. I play for the surprising outcomes.

its like that point in writing when the character tells the author "nope thats wrong should be this" only it happens a lot mre often and i embrace it rather than have it be "this is the challenge..." and then wait for them to narrate or roll their way through it.

Some indie games exploit this principle to the strongest level - the SEARCH ROLL is not a test of character success or fail as much as it is a test of WAS THERE SOMETHING THERE TO FIND. its a recognition that its "our world" not "my world" and that just like a fighter with an 18 strength and a greataxe leaves his mark on a combat scene without me having to "setup things for him" the character with similarly exceptional search skills should be equally as "influential."

It's not just indie games. Are you now saying that you actually play a story-first style game where players have narrative control, that announcing "I roll an Insight 30" means your player gets to now author something up to an insight 30 worth of things? You clearly aren't playing that style of game, and, yes, having played those games before I'm quite familiar with the concepts. Those games require a stated goal before a roll, so it's not 'I roll search, do I find something" its "I search for a secret door on the West wall leveraging (insert character appropriate move or trait here), <clatter>, success!" Then the GM narrates the finding of a secret door. On a failure, the GM has other options, including the finding of a secret door that opens to bad guys in ambush. So, still not declare rolls without clearly stated objectives and methods.

Anyway, just a thought.

Yes, well, not one that supports your arguments, really. Pointing out that something you don't play has a feature that works in a way that isn't what your advocating is rarely a compelling argument.