D&D 5E Players Self-Assigning Rolls

[iserith]

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.

How does this distinction serve you?

A challenge is something the PCs can win or lose and their interaction with said challenge creates a scene. The dramatic question of the challenge and thus the scene is "Can the characters retrieve the treasure from the cursed altar?" Once resolved, one way or another, the scene is done.

The DM, as the master of worlds and master of adventures, is tasked with presenting challenges. It's unclear to me why you wouldn't view this example of the altar as a challenge for the players.

 

[Satyrn]

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.

As you're doing so do you ever say "yeah, that's awesome, let's go with that," out loud?

I'm hoping I'm not the only one.

 

[5ekyu]

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.


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.

Ok so, as i stated in another post, i tend to structure my info intop different tiers and some of it is in the "just show up" side, some of it in the "make some typical choices and then some of it is in the "success and major success levels of "gating." The HAS TO KNOW for there to be a scene is in the first two tiers and the "HELPS TO KNOW stuff is in the second two. Depending on the risk level, it may be really really really bad idea to just muscle through with the first two tiers.

So, what i was describing to your was not "the extent" of the info from each but the type of info from each type of skill check.

And also, as described in another post, its not a challenge but a scene. The players and their characters help to shape what comes out of that scene and even to a notable degree (in my games) what is in it.

To be very explicit about this - unlike say a section in a pre-fab tourney module, a player's choices and his characters efforts and especially exceptional successes can wind up ADDING stuff to the encounter that was not previously there in my mind. Just like tere are some here who talk about adding a chance of failure if the players roll even if there was not one before, i do this the opposite way - allowing the player who works his character's skill and his narrative and the mechanics all together to get the chance to be rewarded with it.

One benefit of this is, it doesn't require me to do so much work at "balancing" their characters. See, actual balance comes from the instersection of challenge, gain and abilities and that puts a lot over on the GM to kind of watch if their stories feature enough of each character's abilities to play out close. But, if i see the ROLL as not only a PASS/FAIL CHALLENGE PASSER but alos a INSERTION ATTEMPT, then they can do some of that for me.

So, while for you a religion test might no be part of the CHALLENGE PATH for me it might be an opportunity to add in some relgion linked elements that can play a role and take the story or sidebars into a direction that leads to that sort of theme. Simplest would be that be recognizes some symbols from some trinkets that he can return to a nearby temple, helping them recognize the as beloniging to missing acolytes who have been gone without them knowing why.

The roll to me was an opportunity and a request to "see if my good-at is useful" even if it is not part of the preset CHALLNGE PATh you have pre-defined.

We build campaigns differently, that is for sure. i can see why you do not want to share the call for rolls with your players.

 

[Ovinomancer]

As you're doing so do you ever say "yeah, that's awesome, let's go with that," out loud?

I'm hoping I'm not the only one.

Totally not. Usually I'm just prideful enough to pretend that's how it was all along, but sometimes (only sometimes, mind), I'm overcome by my appreciation and grudgingly get credit.

 

[5ekyu]

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.

Actually i was pointing out part of the influences that have lead me to view rolls as an opportunity.

I do NOT let players rolls allow them to flat out author a scene or with intent alter a scene element, that actually is done by story point expenditure.

I let player rolls influence me to flesh out an area of the scene even to the point of adding not just details but opportunities. Sometimes it will just be flavor that ties it together. maybe the religion roll found trinkets that a temple would reward them for... where as before i had it in my mind as "misc loot from bodies."

But, no, "stroke of luck" which is my rules term for player driven scene editing power is not tied to skill rolls as those are too unpredictable. those are fueled by story points which are given equally to all.

maybe you have missed the hand-in-hand-in-glove part which keeps narrative or story etc as part of the things put in balance, not mechanics uber alles?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Ok so, as i stated in another post, i tend to structure my info intop different tiers and some of it is in the "just show up" side, some of it in the "make some typical choices and then some of it is in the "success and major success levels of "gating." The HAS TO KNOW for there to be a scene is in the first two tiers and the "HELPS TO KNOW stuff is in the second two. Depending on the risk level, it may be really really really bad idea to just muscle through with the first two tiers.

So, what i was describing to your was not "the extent" of the info from each but the type of info from each type of skill check.

And also, as described in another post, its not a challenge but a scene. The players and their characters help to shape what comes out of that scene and even to a notable degree (in my games) what is in it.

To be very explicit about this - unlike say a section in a pre-fab tourney module, a player's choices and his characters efforts and especially exceptional successes can wind up ADDING stuff to the encounter that was not previously there in my mind. Just like tere are some here who talk about adding a chance of failure if the players roll even if there was not one before, i do this the opposite way - allowing the player who works his character's skill and his narrative and the mechanics all together to get the chance to be rewarded with it.

One benefit of this is, it doesn't require me to do so much work at "balancing" their characters. See, actual balance comes from the instersection of challenge, gain and abilities and that puts a lot over on the GM to kind of watch if their stories feature enough of each character's abilities to play out close. But, if i see the ROLL as not only a PASS/FAIL CHALLENGE PASSER but alos a INSERTION ATTEMPT, then they can do some of that for me.

So, while for you a religion test might no be part of the CHALLENGE PATH for me it might be an opportunity to add in some relgion linked elements that can play a role and take the story or sidebars into a direction that leads to that sort of theme. Simplest would be that be recognizes some symbols from some trinkets that he can return to a nearby temple, helping them recognize the as beloniging to missing acolytes who have been gone without them knowing why.

The roll to me was an opportunity and a request to "see if my good-at is useful" even if it is not part of the preset CHALLNGE PATh you have pre-defined.

We build campaigns differently, that is for sure. i can see why you do not want to share the call for rolls with your players.

No, you don't, you see the strawman characterization you've built. It has almost nothing to do with my game or why I've chosen to disallow calls for rolls.

Again, since you seem to be slow on the uptake here -- nothing I do limits my players from taking the actions they wish to take. They have as much freedom as your players. The only difference is that I actually ask them to state what actions they're taking and what they're looking to accomplish with those actions and not just drop dice and name a line on their character sheet. The former allows me to work with the player to achieve their goals -- goals that might also broaden the fiction that I originally placed. I dislike having to guess what approach my players mean by a roll result declaration.

So, if the players want to do whatever they can imagine to investigate the altar, they can do that. Depending on their approach, I may call for a roll, if I feel the outcome is both uncertain and has a price for failure. Otherwise, it succeeds or fails based on what my players declare, not some hidden desire of mine or a fixed set of immutable gates that they must guess the right actions to pass.

As for scenes, again, I fail to even grasp the point of a scene being set that doesn't have some kind of challenge. Given I said the altar was 1) dangerous to touch and 2) had treasure hidden in it, what would you call that? I call it a challenge -- can you get the goodies without the ouches. If my players are uninterested and decide to wander off, great, no skin off my back, we move the the next scene (in this dungeon concept, the next room). They can come back or whatever. If one of my players comes up with a goal and approach that's way cooler than what I had imagined (and this certainly happens), then I'll adapt the scene to allow the cool. I do this quite often. Most of my scenes are written as vague as possible to allow for easy manipulation of the fiction to allow cool player declarations. Literally, the example i gave for the altar is just about the totality of what I might prep for that challenge -- that there's a danger, what it is, and and rewards. So, an altar that explodes in negative energy when touched that has a nice goodie hidden inside. The owners of the alter would have been determined in earlier play by player interest and the goodie would likewise have been determined by earlier play as something the players want to go get. If these things aren't tied to things my players care about, we'd be doing something different.

And, to be clear, right now I'm running a sandbox game, so there are lots of things already loosely set, but everything being played is because the players want to do that thing, not because I've pre-written some stuff. I have no plot for my game, right now, because we're only a few sessions in and the players haven't developed one yet. They'll do that by their choices and the consequences thereof. I have a few setting themes that are guiding play right now and will remain, but I don't have reasons solidly in place for why those themes exist -- we'll find out in play, if they players care, too.

So, no, you don't understand why I play the way I do. You have it very wrong. I play the way I do because I got tired of guessing all the time and the frustration of a failed roll preventing things that shouldn't have been behind rolls to begin with. Oh, and pointless rolling, like all of the rolling you've discussed about the altar. As far as the game I run, it's very open to player desires and declarations. I enable a broader range of things now than I used to when I expected players to call out what skills they were using instead of telling me what they want to accomplish and how they're plan to do that.

Again, you're welcome to play the way you want to. I'm excited and happy there's more than one way to play this shared hobby of mine, because that means I have more to learn about it. I have room to improve. But, I would ask that you stop trying to assume why I do things, especially when I haven't been at all shy about telling you.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Actually i was pointing out part of the influences that have lead me to view rolls as an opportunity.

I do NOT let players rolls allow them to flat out author a scene or with intent alter a scene element, that actually is done by story point expenditure.

I let player rolls influence me to flesh out an area of the scene even to the point of adding not just details but opportunities. Sometimes it will just be flavor that ties it together. maybe the religion roll found trinkets that a temple would reward them for... where as before i had it in my mind as "misc loot from bodies."

But, no, "stroke of luck" which is my rules term for player driven scene editing power is not tied to skill rolls as those are too unpredictable. those are fueled by story points which are given equally to all.

That's not how those systems work, but if you got something positive from it, good for you.

maybe you have missed the hand-in-hand-in-glove part which keeps narrative or story etc as part of the things put in balance, not mechanics uber alles?

I actually don't think I'm the one making the mistake here.

 

[5ekyu]

How does this distinction serve you?

A challenge is something the PCs can win or lose and their interaction with said challenge creates a scene. The dramatic question of the challenge and thus the scene is "Can the characters retrieve the treasure from the cursed altar?" Once resolved, one way or another, the scene is done.

The DM, as the master of worlds and master of adventures, is tasked with presenting challenges. It's unclear to me why you wouldn't view this example of the altar as a challenge for the players.

The line in the brief excerpt i provided that this was addressing was this
"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."

the distinction between seeing the challenge and only having mechanics and checks play a role in that laser focused "path to the challenge" and my approach is my approach lets the scene become more than a challenge, more than "the challenge" and much more a thing the player's help bring manifest.

Sure, they can show up and stay on point and do the challenge and leave and limit themselves to "the challenge path" but they also can get a lot more out of it than that especially if i view it as not "the challenge" or "my challenge" but as "our scene".

just like there is a difference between me as "master of adventures" or "master of worlds" and me as "one part of a shared world and shared adventures."

 

[iserith]

The line in the brief excerpt i provided that this was addressing was this
"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."

the distinction between seeing the challenge and only having mechanics and checks play a role in that laser focused "path to the challenge" and my approach is my approach lets the scene become more than a challenge, more than "the challenge" and much more a thing the player's help bring manifest.

Sure, they can show up and stay on point and do the challenge and leave and limit themselves to "the challenge path" but they also can get a lot more out of it than that especially if i view it as not "the challenge" or "my challenge" but as "our scene".

just like there is a difference between me as "master of adventures" or "master of worlds" and me as "one part of a shared world and shared adventures."

Do you believe that when I'm presenting this altar challenge to my players and running the game as I believe it is intended that it's somehow not "our scene?" Because we are creating that scene together even if it's me who created the challenge.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

You can add me to that list. Even if a player rolls the die in advance, or just says, "I want to make an investigate check", I won't proceed without asking why and/or how they go about it. I found it as frustrating as [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] did. At this point my players rarely toss dice or just say they want to make a check. They've learned that they are going to have to describe their goal and approach anyway.

 

[5ekyu]

That's not how those systems work, but if you got something positive from it, good for you.


I actually don't think I'm the one making the mistake here.

Well two things...

Those systems work many different ways, not alk the one way you seem to have encountered. Its surprising given the breath of indi ganes i have seen anyone woukd start talking anout them so narrowly.

Second i think one area you are confused at is the oftvrepeated biased view here that player calked roll support seems to be with non decription.

As i have described pkenty of time i am describing cases where players describe and apply die rolls.

Does fit the narrative here i know.

Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app

 

[Maxperson]

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 view social interactions through tinted glasses.

If a socially awkward player of a charisma 20 paladin stammers and stutters his way through some words, I'm going to give him a bonus anyway. The person on the receiving end is hearing those words presented eloquently. If a player with incredibly acting skills who is playing a charisma 8 druid presents an amazingly eloquent speech, he's still going to get the penalty as the person on the receiving end is hearing things presented........not eloquently. If either player chooses a persuasive reason in his roleplay, they will get a circumstance bonus. A simple "I give a speech" isn't going to get anything from me other than a "Be more specific. I need at least a general idea of what you are saying.".

 

[5ekyu]

Do you believe that when I'm presenting this altar challenge to my players and running the game as I believe it is intended that it's somehow not "our scene?" Because we are creating that scene together even if it's me who created the challenge.

Cant speak to that. Not mind reader, but the point that got my respobse was the like twice in several sentence focus on going ahead and getting to the chalkenge and the sense that "the challenge" was the thing that was important and that is not how my play comes out.

Tonight's run had the only challenge or confluct being wrapping up a sub plot and its actual conflict and combat ebded in a no roll auto success because the plans and skills of the players led it to an obvious squash match and nothin would be gained from a 30 to 45m countdown.

Meanwhile the majority of the run was narrative with skilks and info gathering and prep... And the higly unexpected "training up of rookies" by my players.

It was a great run thru many turns and twists and not once did someone just die roll.

Now i gotta go do loot plus data for the poor auto squash bounty hunters. They had a good run. But now...



Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app

 

[iserith]

Cant speak to that. Not mind reader, but the point that got my respobse was the like twice in several sentence focus on going ahead and getting to the chalkenge and the sense that "the challenge" was the thing that was important and that is not how my play comes out.

Tonight's run had the only challenge or confluct being wrapping up a sub plot and its actual conflict and combat ebded in a no roll auto success because the plans and skills of the players led it to an obvious squash match and nothin would be gained from a 30 to 45m countdown.

Meanwhile the majority of the run was narrative with skilks and info gathering and prep... And the higly unexpected "training up of rookies" by my players.

It was a great run thru many turns and twists and not once did someone just die roll.

Now i gotta go do loot plus data for the poor auto squash bounty hunters. They had a good run. But now...

Okay. I would say you had a combat challenge or possibly an exploration and/or social interaction challenge to give themselves an overwhelming advantage over the enemy to obviate that combat challenge (depending on how you want to look at it). "Info gathering and prep" could also be an exploration challenge and/or social interaction challenge. I don't know what the "training" bit is, but that might also be a challenge if something was at stake.

A scene where there's something at stake over which the PCs have some kind of influence is a challenge. I hope that helps you understand what I'm referring to (and possibly other posters in this thread if they agree with my explanation).

 

[Ovinomancer]

Well two things...

Those systems work many different ways, not alk the one way you seem to have encountered. Its surprising given the breath of indi ganes i have seen anyone woukd start talking anout them so narrowly.

Goodness. Well, I looked back, and it seems that you only referenced the indie games that allow a successful check to author changes in the fiction, so I felt you were only talking about those games. Apparently, though, you were talking about all indie games, with all resolution mechanics, and shouldn't be held to the specific reference you made because there might be a different indie game that uses a different mechanic that wasn't that? I'd really hate to believe that you're telling us that we should not understand you with the words you use, but instead as a quantum uncertainty that can be both referring to what you said and yet also referring to what you didn't say but might be possible. It would make discussion with you... difficult, for lack of a better term.

Second i think one area you are confused at is the oftvrepeated biased view here that player calked roll support seems to be with non decription.

Well, as I've said multiple times in multiple posts, some of which you've even quoted, I specifically don't see them as incompatible. However, I do see allowing player declared rolls to incentivize play that is counter to the goals of clearly stated objectives and methods. You can counter that incentive, but you have to be resolute.

Which is something I've also said more than once.

As i have described pkenty of time i am describing cases where players describe and apply die rolls.

No, doubt, as every time they've described the roll they've made as 'Diplomacy check, 15!' That's a well described roll. If we go with what I think you meant to say, you're claiming you require a goal and method to the check, so instead the player says 'I try to flatter the merchant into giving us a discount, Diplomancy check, 15!' That is better, and right in line with what I say above about the two methods not being incompatible.

However, that said, I haven't yet seen an actual description of how you do this in your games, yet. It's possible I missed it, yes, but it's really only been you recently claiming this is what happens without example. Hard to know if what you're saying you do comports with what we do to any degree with examples. Not that you owe them to us, this is an internet discussion between strangers, after all, and nothing is owed to anyone. But it's hard to continue the discussion with bland general statements attached to cries of victimhood like this:

Does fit the narrative here i know.

Yes, the 'narrative' is here just to pick on you. Except, and this is important, no one here really cares how you play it in your game. I'm pretty sure all of us are happy you're playing, because it expands the group we share a common interest in. Don't confused impassioned championing of my style here with any condemnation of yours. I played like you did for a long time, and had a great deal of fun doing it, too. I just have changed over time to value a different experience. Different, not better. Better for me, yes, and seemingly better for my game (it's being well received so far), but not objectively better for anyone else. How you play is up to you, and if you like how you do it, well, I like that you like how you do it. Disagreement doesn't engender victimhood -- don't fall into that trap as it's an easy way to assure yourself you have nothing to learn. I've learned a few things from you in this discussion, honestly. They've all mostly convinced me that the way I'm going is right for me, but you've helped me cement a few loose cracks in my thinking that I didn't know existed until they were challenged. For that, thank you.

 

[5ekyu]

Ovinomancer

First, its hard to imagine you actually looked back at what i wrote about indie games and came away with one subset using one specific mechanic, since i have referenced them multiple times through this thread in different contexts.

Second, it is not hard to imagine that if you looked back at that one reference that you again make the same error you did the first time - although you seem to have shifted a bit. I referenced a mechanic where the ROLL determines whether there is something to find in the scene. You then mistook that or mistranslated that or misconstrued that into a case where it is DIRECT PLAYER AUTHORSHIP (the spend 30 results thingy) but now you seem to find a middle route which may actually agree with what i said, but its not clear that your intent now is to refer to "GM" or "players" as the author in this latest reference. Your previous statement about games where players spend etc is a subset of indie games which have the roll able to represent success not from the perspective of a pre-defined, pre-fabbed GM menu of possibilities in that scene. That was the mistake you already made once.

third, you have a marvelously limited view of my posts and even yours. no doubt that helps with whatever it is that you think you are doing.

but above you say "The only difference is that I actually ask them to state what actions they're taking and what they're looking to accomplish with those actions and not just drop dice and name a line on their character sheet. "

yet in the recent "I examine the altar" short list i said that none of those provided sufficient information and that i would ask them a leading question from it to move with answering it... but i did point out that the skill they were choosing provided me with some information on what they could get from that effort.

now you say i haven't given examples, now you suggest the difference is between your way and "just drop dice and name a line on their character sheet. " and again go on about how you aren't at all arguing those two combined are not compatible?

As for the "recently" point of your misunderstanding, from my very first post in this thread 25 pages ago...

"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..."

In that example you may be able to admit several things are established.

1 - A large body of experience between player and Gm for this kind of action and resolution in their game.
2 - a statement from the character of an action being taken and even the "where" it is being taken, so no question about placement.
3 - then a statement of roll added by the player (obviously the ... is meant to cover the statement of roll result and type.)

yet you come back to your current state of uncertainty...

But let me be clear...

In my games, FOR RESOLUTION OF A ROLL/TASK you need to tell me what your character is doing, but that does not need to include specifics as to the specific physical nature of the activity in all cases. You can say "i search over there" just like you can say "i craft a sword" or "i try and talk the bartender into free drinks" or "i examine the altar" (insufficient info there likely as it does not clarify "from where") etc and which skill you are using and i can resolve that for you.

I do not require "drag my knife along the mortar seams" or "i toss blue beans into the room" for your search roll anymore than i need a blow-by-blow of the sequence you use in forging (do you roll then quench or do you flame then pound then fold - is it fasten then zip of zip then fasten MR Garibaldi.)

i also do not require a specific stated goal in the vast majority of actions for two reasons

1 - "i climb the tree" will be resolved the same way... regardless of "why" you are climbing the tree. "I search over there" does not really need to know what you hope to find just what is found if anything. i can actually say that in my games the number of times characters found something completely different than what they were looking for is significant and a lot of fun.

2 - In the vast majority of cases, if there is a clearly defined goal, it is obvious in the context of the scene. "i search over there" does not pop out of the blue when they camp by the fire... it occurs in a scene that gives it context that more clearly highlioghts not only "where there is" but also "why are we searching" even if it is just "to see if there is something of note in that pile of bones"

So, to be clear since you seem deadlocked and determined to see it within your goal and method rigid framework...

I do not require an overt statement of goal - because goal is not needed to determine the success or failure of an action especially when player and GM both have a strong foundation of experience with resolution in the game.

i do not require "method" in the way you or perhaps others describe (one example being the knife mortar thingy) as neither of us needs to attempt to portray what a skilled master at ABC does to resolve that action. As we have seen here, GMs in my experience but also on this board, seem to have widely different standards for what qualifies (for secret doors is it "dagger along mortar approach or flour along edges looking for gusts and then i will let you guess what the answer means maybe with second roll" vs for crafting "i use my forge and anvil to make... but does not seem to be a guess about whether or not you got a good sword or not?")

"I climb the tree", "i pick the lock" "i search over there" along with statement of ability and proficiency is enough to give me the ability to resolve the action in the vast majority of cases and in the ones where its not, i simply ask more info along the way during the description turning the "resolution" into an interactive thing, not so much a flowchart of [state goal] [state method] [hit GM play button] with a branch for [roll needed yes-no].

ASIDE - also as stated, in the cases where players don't know the specifics, they give similar descriptions and then wait for me the GM to give them the rolls needed etc. Not unlike the normal "wait for gm" approach but still without the more overt method and goal declarations - just conversationally.

For several reasons, i doubt this will help much or that we will agree on much in this overall subject at all so its good there are so many different flavors oc ice cream in this RPG buffet.

Enjoy your games.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Ovinomancer

First, its hard to imagine you actually looked back at what i wrote about indie games and came away with one subset using one specific mechanic, since i have referenced them multiple times through this thread in different contexts.

Second, it is not hard to imagine that if you looked back at that one reference that you again make the same error you did the first time - although you seem to have shifted a bit. I referenced a mechanic where the ROLL determines whether there is something to find in the scene. You then mistook that or mistranslated that or misconstrued that into a case where it is DIRECT PLAYER AUTHORSHIP (the spend 30 results thingy) but now you seem to find a middle route which may actually agree with what i said, but its not clear that your intent now is to refer to "GM" or "players" as the author in this latest reference. Your previous statement about games where players spend etc is a subset of indie games which have the roll able to represent success not from the perspective of a pre-defined, pre-fabbed GM menu of possibilities in that scene. That was the mistake you already made once.

Well, yes, because the player caused the thing to be authored. Whether or not the player directly does the authoring or makes the DM respond by authoring what the player wants doesn't matter. If the player declares 'I'm looking for a secret door, Perception 16!' and then the DM adds a secret door because of that roll, then the player is authoring a bit of the fiction, whoever narrates.

This is a very narrow point that you're trying to make, and not a successful one.

third, you have a marvelously limited view of my posts and even yours. no doubt that helps with whatever it is that you think you are doing.

Did you think this was going to encourage me to listen to you again, or... what, exactly? You seem to think I'm attacking you, and accusing you of badwrong. Nothing could be further from the truth. We're discussion how to play pretend elves, not if we're bad people because of how we play pretend elves. I'm arguing from my position, you from yours. Neither is the best way to play, but both are the right way to play for us, respectively.

but above you say "The only difference is that I actually ask them to state what actions they're taking and what they're looking to accomplish with those actions and not just drop dice and name a line on their character sheet. "

yet in the recent "I examine the altar" short list i said that none of those provided sufficient information and that i would ask them a leading question from it to move with answering it... but i did point out that the skill they were choosing provided me with some information on what they could get from that effort.

now you say i haven't given examples, now you suggest the difference is between your way and "just drop dice and name a line on their character sheet. " and again go on about how you aren't at all arguing those two combined are not compatible?

Literally, your example was dropping dice and naming a line on the character sheet. You then went back after and said that you'd then have to ask clarifying questions about the dropping of the dice and naming a line on the character sheet. When the exactly thing I said was happening was the crux of your example, which you then had to say that you'd have to go back and ask the players to do more than just drop the dice and name a line on their character sheet, I kinda feel like my point was made.

Kudos for asking for more information, though. However, my point stands that your players are doing exactly what I said I was trying to avoid. That you then address it after the fact doesn't change what actually happened there.

As for the "recently" point of your misunderstanding, from my very first post in this thread 25 pages ago...

Well, I wasn't talking about your first post, was I?

"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 that's great, if it works for you. It no longer works for me, for the many, many reasons I've outlined.

In that example you may be able to admit several things are established.

1 - A large body of experience between player and Gm for this kind of action and resolution in their game.
2 - a statement from the character of an action being taken and even the "where" it is being taken, so no question about placement.
3 - then a statement of roll added by the player (obviously the ... is meant to cover the statement of roll result and type.)

yet you come back to your current state of uncertainty...

Again, glad this works for you. It doesn't for me, because, well 1) hyperbole aside, the exact situation being discussed in game isn't the same as the last ones. If the players are searching every 10' of every wall in a dungeon where all the walls are the same, sure, we can skip to the end, but that's not the game I run. If my players do that, there's a lot of 'okay, you spend 10 minutes on that wall and find nothing. Let me check for wandering monsters." In point of fact, in my game, if there's something to find on that wall, I'll telegraph it. I'll use a player's passive score for a skill to provide a clue that something is different at this stretch of wall, and they'll either be interested and start declaring actions or they won't be. There will never be a large body of previously established 'drop dice and name a skill' to begin with.

Also, I've grown to hate tons of useless rolls.

2)But no how. How is important to me. How lets me drive the fiction to match what the player is really trying to do so I can engage what my players find interesting.

3) yup, the player tells you a number, and now you have to interpret or ignore that number.

But let me be clear...

In my games, FOR RESOLUTION OF A ROLL/TASK you need to tell me what your character is doing, but that does not need to include specifics as to the specific physical nature of the activity in all cases. You can say "i search over there" just like you can say "i craft a sword" or "i try and talk the bartender into free drinks" or "i examine the altar" (insufficient info there likely as it does not clarify "from where") etc and which skill you are using and i can resolve that for you.

That's not an approach, though. Searching is an action, yes, but how you search is the approach. Are you touching the altar while you search it? BAM! Are you not touching the altar? No BAM. Approach is critical, and I do not want to interpret a player's declaration of a skill to include such things as the scene hinges upon. I don't want to argue 'but my character wouldn't have done it that way!' anymore. If you don't have that problem, awesome, man, glad it works for you. I had that problem. I don't anymore, because I changed how I play to require clearly stated approaches. Can you do that along with player declared rolls? You betcha. I've found it doesn't work out that well for me and my group because it's too easy to fall back into the habits I want to change.

I do not require "drag my knife along the mortar seams" or "i toss blue beans into the room" for your search roll anymore than i need a blow-by-blow of the sequence you use in forging (do you roll then quench or do you flame then pound then fold - is it fasten then zip of zip then fasten MR Garibaldi.)

i also do not require a specific stated goal in the vast majority of actions for two reasons

1 - "i climb the tree" will be resolved the same way... regardless of "why" you are climbing the tree. "I search over there" does not really need to know what you hope to find just what is found if anything. i can actually say that in my games the number of times characters found something completely different than what they were looking for is significant and a lot of fun.

Climbing the tree is a goal, though. I climb the tree explicitly states the goal. This isn't a good example of not clearly stating a goal. Why you want that goal is generally irrelevant, although if your eventual plan is to jump off the top of the tree, do three flips, and stick the landing on the back of that wild horse galloping by, I'd really hope you ran that whole plan past me first so that I can, 1) skip the check to climb the tree (it's easily climbed, and this isn't the interesting part of your action) and 2) let you know that's going to be really, really hard to do before you try. If you insist, well, a DC 25 DEX check sounds about right. You can use Acrobatics with that, or if you think something else will help make a case.

2 - In the vast majority of cases, if there is a clearly defined goal, it is obvious in the context of the scene. "i search over there" does not pop out of the blue when they camp by the fire... it occurs in a scene that gives it context that more clearly highlioghts not only "where there is" but also "why are we searching" even if it is just "to see if there is something of note in that pile of bones"

I'm not going to ask for a check for most of those, though. If you go looking through that pile of bones, and something was in it, you found it, no check needed. If you look for a secret door in the wall by X approach, make a check -- one decided by your choice of approach -- and we'll see if you found something. If the approach is to examine the wall for a hidden door, relying on your expertise as a stonemason (proficient in masonry tools) and your racial understanding of stonework (mountain dwarf) to see if the setting of the bricks is off, well, that's an intelligence check, modified by perception (you're looking) or masonry tools (experience), with advantage due being a dwarf. By clearly stating an approach, the player can drive the check towards their strengths. If they just make a WIS (perception) check, it won't be as favorable to them.

So, to be clear since you seem deadlocked and determined to see it within your goal and method rigid framework...

I do not require an overt statement of goal - because goal is not needed to determine the success or failure of an action especially when player and GM both have a strong foundation of experience with resolution in the game.

Sure, it is. If a player declares "I search! I got a perception 19!" you're going to have to ask what they're searching for. Especially if there's a hidden pixie in the corner behind that burlap sack AND a secret door in the west wall AND a trap on the door in the north wall. If you don't know the goal, how can you adjudicate the action at all?

What you mean is that you don't ask for an overt statement of a goal if you can reasonably deduce or assume the goal. And that's fine, most all of use have done that and still do. I've found, though, that I'm not my players, and they're thinking and assumptions aren't mine, so by requiring a clearly stated goal -- what they want to accomplish -- I can head off miscommunications or bad assumptions and the game doesn't have to backtrack that often. To return to the above example, finding the pixie is DC 14, finding the secret door is DC 17, and finding the trap is DC 25 (good trap). Since the player was just talking about the door, I assume they're searching that, and the trap was discharged by the failed search. The player was thinking about looking for treasure, though, and would have found the pixie had they stated a clear goal. Now we argue because the player wanted something else, and I've now revealed there's a trap on the north door, so there's no clean takebacks. And, this exactly kind of situation is one of the reasons I switched. Maybe you don't have these, or ask enough clarifying questions to avoid it, and, if so, awesome! Great to hear about games well played!

i do not require "method" in the way you or perhaps others describe (one example being the knife mortar thingy) as neither of us needs to attempt to portray what a skilled master at ABC does to resolve that action. As we have seen here, GMs in my experience but also on this board, seem to have widely different standards for what qualifies (for secret doors is it "dagger along mortar approach or flour along edges looking for gusts and then i will let you guess what the answer means maybe with second roll" vs for crafting "i use my forge and anvil to make... but does not seem to be a guess about whether or not you got a good sword or not?")

You misunderstand. No one discussing this expects a master's understanding of the craft. I do not set up my scenes with only one way to solve a problem and the players have to guess or use exact, real-world methods to solve it. If there's a locked door with a frozen lock, I don't know how the party is going to bypass it. I can think of a few ways, sure, even very likely ways, but all I know is that the door is locked and the lock is frozen and that's going to make any check to pick it go at disadvantage. Past that, I lean on established information. The players then engage, and based on their approach and goal, I adjudicate. If a player wants to lift the door from the hinges, for instance, they don't have to tell me exactly how that works, they just tell me 'I'm going to try to lift the door from the hinges. I'm proficient in smith's tools, if that helps.' Then, I evaluate that. Someone proficient in smith's tools probably understands how hinges work, since they make them. So, I'll set a DC as 'okay, sounds like a physical effort, so that'll be a STR check. Not that hard, though, it's not a heavy door, so DC 10 sounds good. You can add your proficiency in smith's tools if you want." Another player may then chime in with, "I don't know how hinges work, but I'm strong and trained in athletics, can I help?" "Sure, player 1 roll with advantage, please." If the check passes, they lift the door and it's now open, but cannot be closed without remounting it. Success, with a complication related to the approach. If they fail, the attempt fails and they've made a lot of noise as a tool slips. I check to see if anything nearby would investigate that noise.

"I climb the tree", "i pick the lock" "i search over there" along with statement of ability and proficiency is enough to give me the ability to resolve the action in the vast majority of cases and in the ones where its not, i simply ask more info along the way during the description turning the "resolution" into an interactive thing, not so much a flowchart of [state goal] [state method] [hit GM play button] with a branch for [roll needed yes-no].

Sure, you're assuming the method and goals, and maybe that works for you. It didn't work for me.

ASIDE - also as stated, in the cases where players don't know the specifics, they give similar descriptions and then wait for me the GM to give them the rolls needed etc. Not unlike the normal "wait for gm" approach but still without the more overt method and goal declarations - just conversationally.

For several reasons, i doubt this will help much or that we will agree on much in this overall subject at all so its good there are so many different flavors oc ice cream in this RPG buffet.

Enjoy your games.

Happy gaming!

 

[GMforPowergamers]

one of the things I often wonder is if the amount of time playing with a group changes this.

I know that my Tuesday night game has run across 3 1/2 editions of the game and 17+ years. We had players come and go, but 3 of the ones that started in 3.0 also are playing now in 5e. We have also had other campaigns in other games over the years...Rifts, Big Eye Small Mouth, Deadlands, DC Superheroes (d6 west end games), Champions, Mutants and Masterminds, Star trek 2 different systems, star wars (d20), Vampire the Masq, Mage the ascension, 2 home brew games, and dozens of board/card games... and as such we can pretty much tell what we are doing.

I not only allow people to guess what I am about to do, sometimes I even let them guess about auto success... We also have standard assumptions from time to time.

Example: "Since my character is trained in Arcana and went to magic college, I identify the damage as hell fire"
yup that's right, the player just goes into it without rolling...if I want I can stop him and say "You have to roll," or "That's not what you think"

I also allow for the fact that some of the PCs need to work with skills they themselves can't describe... "I use my investigate to figure out what happened here I rolled 12 plus my 8 so 20" wont have me ask "So how are you investigating?" or If the player playing the 20 cha bard with skill prof and expertise in diplomacy might say "I calm the two people arguing" I will set a DC because the character is way better with words than he is...

Sometimes this even goes into short hand.

real life example:
Me (DM): you get to the old stone door and it looks like a dragon head.
(Rogue player): Is it trapped? My min roll on perception is 23...
Me: Nope
(Fighterplayer): do we set up the minis or can I just open the door?
Me: no need for minis here, you open the door and enter the main chamber, its just a big chamber full of statues and door. (Priest player name) can identify some statues of known iconic non deity celestials related to dragon gods, and (warlock player name) can see some arcane markings that he thinks are fey in nature. There are 4 doors, 3 heading deeper in, each with a gem stone dragon head over them, and the fourth to the side with a fey mark over it.
(Warlock player): Ok lets start with magic and traps them move to the first dragon door.
(Rogue player): DO I need to roll?
me: no, but if you go to a dragon door it's going to need minis...
(Fighter player): wait, but not the side one, lets do that first to get it out of the way...

 

[5ekyu]

one of the things I often wonder is if the amount of time playing with a group changes this.

I know that my Tuesday night game has run across 3 1/2 editions of the game and 17+ years. We had players come and go, but 3 of the ones that started in 3.0 also are playing now in 5e. We have also had other campaigns in other games over the years...Rifts, Big Eye Small Mouth, Deadlands, DC Superheroes (d6 west end games), Champions, Mutants and Masterminds, Star trek 2 different systems, star wars (d20), Vampire the Masq, Mage the ascension, 2 home brew games, and dozens of board/card games... and as such we can pretty much tell what we are doing.

I not only allow people to guess what I am about to do, sometimes I even let them guess about auto success... We also have standard assumptions from time to time.

Example: "Since my character is trained in Arcana and went to magic college, I identify the damage as hell fire"
yup that's right, the player just goes into it without rolling...if I want I can stop him and say "You have to roll," or "That's not what you think"

I also allow for the fact that some of the PCs need to work with skills they themselves can't describe... "I use my investigate to figure out what happened here I rolled 12 plus my 8 so 20" wont have me ask "So how are you investigating?" or If the player playing the 20 cha bard with skill prof and expertise in diplomacy might say "I calm the two people arguing" I will set a DC because the character is way better with words than he is...

Sometimes this even goes into short hand.

real life example:
Me (DM): you get to the old stone door and it looks like a dragon head.
(Rogue player): Is it trapped? My min roll on perception is 23...
Me: Nope
(Fighterplayer): do we set up the minis or can I just open the door?
Me: no need for minis here, you open the door and enter the main chamber, its just a big chamber full of statues and door. (Priest player name) can identify some statues of known iconic non deity celestials related to dragon gods, and (warlock player name) can see some arcane markings that he thinks are fey in nature. There are 4 doors, 3 heading deeper in, each with a gem stone dragon head over them, and the fourth to the side with a fey mark over it.
(Warlock player): Ok lets start with magic and traps them move to the first dragon door.
(Rogue player): DO I need to roll?
me: no, but if you go to a dragon door it's going to need minis...
(Fighter player): wait, but not the side one, lets do that first to get it out of the way...

Thats where i came in at. back on page 1. For some cases its not going to fit, but for others it will.

Not unlike any improv activity, early on you use patterns and structures to guide interactions but as time goes on and familiarity those guides become less needed and perhaps even limiting.

Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app

 

[iserith]

Example: "Since my character is trained in Arcana and went to magic college, I identify the damage as hell fire"
yup that's right, the player just goes into it without rolling...if I want I can stop him and say "You have to roll," or "That's not what you think"

It's not unusual for a player to say his or her character believes something, but telling him or her "That's not what you think?" That's way out of bounds in our game.

real life example:
Me (DM): you get to the old stone door and it looks like a dragon head.
(Rogue player): Is it trapped? My min roll on perception is 23...
Me: Nope
(Fighterplayer): do we set up the minis or can I just open the door?
Me: no need for minis here, you open the door and enter the main chamber, its just a big chamber full of statues and door. (Priest player name) can identify some statues of known iconic non deity celestials related to dragon gods, and (warlock player name) can see some arcane markings that he thinks are fey in nature. There are 4 doors, 3 heading deeper in, each with a gem stone dragon head over them, and the fourth to the side with a fey mark over it.
(Warlock player): Ok lets start with magic and traps them move to the first dragon door.
(Rogue player): DO I need to roll?
me: no, but if you go to a dragon door it's going to need minis...
(Fighter player): wait, but not the side one, lets do that first to get it out of the way...

At our game it would be no questions, more clear statements of goal and approach, no asking to make rolls or inquiring if rolls are necessary, and no assumption on the DM's part about what the characters are doing (e.g. "[you] enter the main chamber).