D&D 5E Players Self-Assigning Rolls

[5ekyu]

This [from post 236, a while back I realize] just has to be called out.By this logic, if the search roll is a test of whether there's something there to find then the str-18 fighter swinging her greataxe is a test of whether there's something there to hit. In other words: by this logic she can make opponents appear out of thin air simply by swinging her axe for the hell of it, just like a searcher can make a secret door appear on the map where one wasn't before just by searching a wall for the hell of it.

Seriously?

I bring this up not just for the sheer folly of the logic, but because you've been consistently saying in here that rolling for combat actions and rolling for non-combat actions work the same at the table. They don't.

In combat play there's not usually any need to say how you're swinging your axe unless you're doing something other than the usual assumption: swinging it at your foe as hard as you can with deadly intent. In non-combat play the 'how' of your action is every bit as important as the 'what' as there are (almost always) many more variables, and many more ways in which things might go wrong - or right.

If there's contact poison on the desk you're searching I need detail on how you're searching it, without having to ask as the very fact of my asking will unduly reveal there's more to this desk than meets the eye. I-as-DM can't assume you're touching it, nor can I assume you are not. "I search the desk, my roll adds to 18" tells me nothing.

Lanefan

Actually, i have said we used the same resolution mechanic or process, not that they produce the same results.

The game system defines clearly the results of a success, failure, crit etc for attack rolls based on weapons etc, but leaves much of the definition of those for ability checks to the GM.

You get that, right?

But good effort, at least a B-, at trying to manufacture ridicule for an alternative "roll means this.." mechanic used in some RPGs and by some game groups.

Happy Holidays.

EDIT TO ADD

Also you do have a bit off on the general sequence of things.

[PLAYER] I search the desk. Roll 25.
[GM[ Success on the search and you find [insert "invention result]

[PLAYER] I attack the goblin. Roll25.

GM: Success on the attack and [damage roll is pre-defined by rules on weapons, class etc.] So, if you take a few non-egg-nogged moments to look at that you will see that the "is there a target" just like "the desk" is defined before the roll is ever made, not a part of the [invention roll mechanic]. So sorry, must re-grade to a C+ at best. Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app

 

[Maxperson]

I doubt anyone told you that you were a bad DM, even if they pointed out that you may sometimes be acting outside of the prescribed role of the DM. But in any case, "Is the door locked" is not describing what you want to do, which is the player's role in the game. "I check to see if the door is locked" is better, though it still lacks reasonable specificity as to how in my view. That might well matter if the door is trapped, for example. And to be clear, we're not talking about "using actions" here in any mechanical sense.

Some questions have built in actions, though. If a player is asking me if the door is locked, the PC must touch the door handle/knob to find out. These doors are not modern doors with the little turn button on the know, but rather old doors with a key hole that locks or unlocks with the key. A visual inspections won't answer that question except under very rare circumstances.

 

[5ekyu]

Having recently played with such a player I wholeheartedly agree with this. He was frequently so adamant that because he said it first and had rolled dice then he got to do it 1st, and the expression on his face when doing so was one of defiance and aggression - akin to 'This is what I am doing, I'm doing it NOW and don't any of you stop me.' He hated it when the DM stopped him and told him to let others have their say.

There is a very good reason the intention of 5E seems to be one of - describe an action, DM decides difficulty and suitable skill - and this is the 'help' rule. It gives other players a chance to say - 'I help you', and therefore grant advantage if applicable.

Another aspect to consider, if that if a group get into the habit of properly describing their actions it gives them *more* control over what their characters do. If they are vague then the DM might well make assumptions they do not like. *SPOILER* . Take as an example a famous trap in a famous dungeon that states that something nasty happens if an altar is touched by living matter.

Clearly - 'I gently check the altar with the tip of my dagger, looking for cracks, and maybe a secret compartment' is a perfectly safe thing to do. As is 'I poke the altar from a distance with my 10' Pole'.

But 'I run my fingers around the edge of the altar looking for secret compartments' is not, nor 'I try to push the altar', or 'I stand on the altar'.

As DM, I don't want to have to ask 'How do you examine the altar', as no matter how many times I say that, the players always get nervous. I want the players to be precise in their descriptions from the get-go.

Plus, if they are imprecise, I would assume 'I check the altar for traps', or 'I check the altar for secret compartments' means they are using their fingers to do the checking. Especially if they roll as they are saying it, thus giving me no chance to ask for more detail...

Asking for better descriptions *gives* more player control over their actions. More 'agency' if I'm forced to use that irritating buzzword.

RE the bold - i would agree completely for that for a game in which there is not a large body of experience bwteen the players and GMs for common actions established in their games. if the players has had the character search many many times there is, IMO, no really good reason to make them repeat the same phrasing every single time, any more than they should have to (as was fun in older edition) re-state from anew their "marching order" or "door protocols" etc over and over every single time.

As for whatever altar you are describing above, i would not likely run into the same problem you seem to have with the above because i would allow the results of a successful search check to reveal something was seriously amiss, in other words, a successful search gives them into that touching the altar or doing their standard operating procedure is BAD.

See, were i to put that altar in the scene, it would not be there to be used as a "phrase-trap" where its going to burn a player who says the wrong thing when it comes to description of action. Smells way too much like "you did not say you looked up." from many days of old.

Instead, on a successful search check their character would get more info and that info would inform that character that "touching that altar looks to be a bad idea."

For example, maybe they find lots of dead bugs right around the altar and tracks/bones that show that things which touched it died, other things tend to move around it at a close distance etc. maybe they also see physical but inanimate objects resting on or against with no problem, etc all of which can lead to "it looks like touching the altar is very bad, for living, not necessarily inanimate."

This kind of skews into my "the character is the expert, not the player" bent.

So, unlike how you describe the resolution, to me its not "you can get burned if you say it the wrong way" but its "you can get burned if your character fails to find sufficient info to tell them "dont do what i normally do."

makes "burned" more a case of "character failure at task" than "player failure at wordsmithery."

Whether or not those are issue for a given Gm or game or players is another thing altogether.

But, in a game like you describe, i could have, say, a dozen or so pre-printed index cards with very detailed "game-tested for this GM" wordsmithed responses for "how do i..." and pull one and read it each time to meet your established and consistent standards... but that does not seem as much an add to the game to me as assuming the character's skills, aptitude and quality of effort (check) is determinant of the consequence of the action.

To be very clear... in games i have run, played in and observed...

1 - i have seen among players more cases of "negative reaction" to consequences for PLAYERS failing "wordsmithery checks" ["you said it this way so... BAM"] than i have for characters failing skill checks ["Your characters attempt failed so...BAM"].

2 - I have also seen worse "outcomes" in general terms as far as of "lessons learned" from the "player wordsmithery" side those two approaches. The former tends to "teach" players to be wary of what they, the player, say. tends to lead to more "wish-proofing" sort of focus and efforts in play because they know their slip of the tongue can be a "gotcha". On the other hand, if they believe success failure lies as much or more with their character's aptitudes than their phrasing, they tend to focus on the character in play more than proofing their player to Gm phrasing.

But clearly, that is not necessarily going to be the same for everyone.

 

[acorn_stasis]

this thread has taught me a lot about being a player! Thanks...

 

[iserith]

Some questions have built in actions, though. If a player is asking me if the door is locked, the PC must touch the door handle/knob to find out. These doors are not modern doors with the little turn button on the know, but rather old doors with a key hole that locks or unlocks with the key. A visual inspections won't answer that question except under very rare circumstances.

In a fantasy world, the doors can basically be anything and have any locking mechanism. Maybe this door in the illithid's lair slides into the wall when it is blasted by psychic energy and touching it sets off an alarm spell that summons a group of umber hulk thralls.

Point is, it's better not to assume in my view. The players' role in the basic conversation of the game is to describe what they want to do. "Is the door locked?" is not that. It's a question from the player to the DM, not a description of action, and leaves the DM to assume and/or establish what the character is doing which is not the DM's role.

 

[Maxperson]

In a fantasy world, the doors can basically be anything and have any locking mechanism. Maybe this door in the illithid's lair slides into the wall when it is blasted by psychic energy and touching it sets off an alarm spell that summons a group of umber hulk thralls.

Point is, it's better not to assume in my view. The players' role in the basic conversation of the game is to describe what they want to do. "Is the door locked?" is not that. It's a question from the player to the DM, not a description of action, and leaves the DM to assume and/or establish what the character is doing which is not the DM's role.

I get that, but barring a modernish door with the visible locking mechanism, whether it opens psionically, magically, with a key, etc., the vast majority of D&D doors will have to be touched to be tested for whether or not they are locked. There are tons and tons of doors, and I'd rather not have to have them stop to tell me that they touch the door to check when it's clearly required in checking 99+% of the time. It's a time saver that avoids a bunch of repetition. Better for me to describe how this time they can see that the door is locked during those rare instances when they can tell the door is locked without needing to touch it.

 

[iserith]

I get that, but barring a modernish door with the visible locking mechanism, whether it opens psionically, magically, with a key, etc., the vast majority of D&D doors will have to be touched to be tested for whether or not they are locked. There are tons and tons of doors, and I'd rather not have to have them stop to tell me that they touch the door to check when it's clearly required in checking 99+% of the time. It's a time saver that avoids a bunch of repetition. Better for me to describe how this time they can see that the door is locked during those rare instances when they can tell the door is locked without needing to touch it.

Even in my biggest dungeon, where there are indeed tons and tons of doors, I'm am going to strive to not assume what the characters do. It doesn't take up enough time to matter as far as I can tell and keeps things consistent with the expected basic conversation of the game at our table. We're still getting through more content in a session than most games I've seen.

Questions like this can lead to assumptions. And when the DM doesn't assume what the character does, they become a way to get additional info without taking an action. That's a crafty way of playing it safe since a question without an assumption of action carries no consequences. So I discourage question-asking in general in my games.

 

[5ekyu]

I get that, but barring a modernish door with the visible locking mechanism, whether it opens psionically, magically, with a key, etc., the vast majority of D&D doors will have to be touched to be tested for whether or not they are locked. There are tons and tons of doors, and I'd rather not have to have them stop to tell me that they touch the door to check when it's clearly required in checking 99+% of the time. It's a time saver that avoids a bunch of repetition. Better for me to describe how this time they can see that the door is locked during those rare instances when they can tell the door is locked without needing to touch it.

Exactly.

After a time certain things become commonplace and "standard" communications.

i am all in with the "describe the odd" approach as opposed to the turn everything into defensive wording every time approach.

"PLAYER did not say you looked up", "PLAYER said you touched the lock", not as important to me for "good stuff happens" vs "bad stuff happens" as is **the character's skill**.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

So I discourage question-asking in general in my games.

This, in particular, makes no sense to me. I cannot even fathom how a game can take place if the players are not allowed to ask questions.

 

[iserith]

This, in particular, makes no sense to me. I cannot even fathom how a game can take place if the players are not allowed to ask questions.

I know, right? It seems like so many games are nothing but questions. How could we even play without players asking questions?

It's really easy though. You just do stuff in the game to get the information you seek by clearly stating a goal and approach. Now, mind I'm not talking about legitimate questions of the DM about not understanding something, like if my description wasn't terribly clear or the player didn't know what an oubliette is. Or whether I want another Jameson because that's a stupid question anyway. (The answer is "yes, please.")

So the test I run in my head if a question is posed is "Can the character find this out by doing something in the context of the game world?" If so, then I ask the player to tell me what the character does to get the information he or she wants.

A question without assumed action is a way to avoid consequences. I would say this mode of playing offers unfair advantages to players in addition to just being kind of clunky when it comes to the play experience in my opinion. So I encourage players to stick to goals and approaches except when they truly don't understand something I'm saying.

 

[Charlaquin]

This, in particular, makes no sense to me. I cannot even fathom how a game can take place if the players are not allowed to ask questions.

Actions (which have goals and approaches) are preferable to questions.
“I draw on my familiarity with stonework to try and identify any distinguishing features of the local architecture” instead of “doI know anything about the local architecture with my stonecunning?” Or “I open every drawer in the desk looking for any keys” instead of “are there any keys in the desk drawers?” “I turn the doorknob to see if it opens” instead of “is the door locked?” “I apologize and ask him to remind me of his name” instead of “what was this guy’s name again?”

I’ve tried the “no questions, only actions approach” and it wasn’t for me, but it definitely has its merits. It grounds absolutely everything in terms of what is actually happening and what the characters are actually doing in the game world, and it insures the DM never has to assume an unstated action. For me it was more trouble than it was worth reminding my players to rephrase their questions in the form of an action their character performs to try to learn the answer. But it can be quite useful if your players are willing to get onboard.

 

[iserith]

Actions (which have goals and approaches) are preferable to questions.
“I draw on my familiarity with stonework to try and identify any distinguishing features of the local architecture” instead of “doI know anything about the local architecture with my stonecunning?” Or “I open every drawer in the desk looking for any keys” instead of “are there any keys in the desk drawers?” “I turn the doorknob to see if it opens” instead of “is the door locked?” “I apologize and ask him to remind me of his name” instead of “what was this guy’s name again?”

I’ve tried the “no questions, only actions approach” and it wasn’t for me, but it definitely has its merits. It grounds absolutely everything in terms of what is actually happening and what the characters are actually doing in the game world, and it insures the DM never has to assume an unstated action. For me it was more trouble than it was worth reminding my players to rephrase their questions in the form of an action their character performs to try to learn the answer. But it can be quite useful if your players are willing to get onboard.

Another upside to grounding everything in terms of what is happening in the game world, as pointed out to me by [MENTION=6776133]Bawylie[/MENTION] in another thread a while back, is that players walk away from the play experience with the feeling that they had done a ton of stuff that session. Because they did! They didn't stop the forward progress of the game after the DM described the environment to have an exchange of Q&A. They continued to act through their characters, describing what they wanted to do, while the DM narrated the results. I'm very concerned with pacing, how much content we get through in a given session, and a play experience where the players feel like they have control over their own characters' destinies. I've found that getting players to think of things in terms of goals and approaches, rather than asking questions and making unprompted rolls, goes a long way toward achieving that.

 

[Charlaquin]

Another upside to grounding everything in terms of what is happening in the game world, as pointed out to me by [MENTION=6776133]Bawylie[/MENTION] in another thread a while back, is that players walk away from the play experience with the feeling that they had done a ton of stuff that session. Because they did! They didn't stop the forward progress of the game after the DM described the environment to have an exchange of Q&A. They continued to act through their characters, describing what they wanted to do, while the DM narrated the results. I'm very concerned with pacing, how much content we get through in a given session, and a play experience where the players feel like they have control over their own characters' destinies. I've found that getting players to think of things in terms of goals and approaches, rather than asking questions and making unprompted rolls, goes a long way toward achieving that.

Absolutely, that’s another big advantage of doing it that way. I remember back before WotC closed their forums down, reading the two of you advocating for this style, which was what prompted me to try it myself. I found goals and approaches incredibly effective, but didn’t feel the payoff for requiring questions to be stated as actions was worth having to fight my players’ instincts to ask questions. I’m glad I tried it though, it was a valuable experience even if I ultimately decided to let the questions part go.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

I feel like the questions thing might lead to statements like, "I use mental remembering to determine whether I've punched my DM in the liver lately." And I like my liver too much to deal with that.

 

[iserith]

Exactly.

After a time certain things become commonplace and "standard" communications.

i am all in with the "describe the odd" approach as opposed to the turn everything into defensive wording every time approach.

"PLAYER did not say you looked up", "PLAYER said you touched the lock", not as important to me for "good stuff happens" vs "bad stuff happens" as is **the character's skill**.

You know, it's much easier to reduce someone's methods down to something absurd than it is to understand them. I know, I've done that before myself. I'm trying to be better than that though.

If you're up for actually understanding what I'm talking about, I'm up for the challenge. Because if this is what you think I'm talking about, you've completely missed the mark.

 

[Charlaquin]

I feel like the questions thing might lead to statements like, "I use mental remembering to determine whether I've punched my DM in the liver lately." And I like my liver too much to deal with that.

In my experience it was never that bad. My players weren’t unwilling to give it a try, but there was a lot of “do I... Err, I mean... I try to remember (whatever)” which was just awkward.

What I do now is handle a lot of things that I’ve found to be awkward to phrase as actions via passive checks. If it’s difficult to phrase in terms of goal and approach, chances are that’s because it’s something you don’t actively do, like recalling information. So I don’t have players roll for those things, I check their passive scores and just give them the information.

This article by the Angry GM pretty perfectly sums up the process I stumbled into myself, although I use 10 as the base for passive checks instead of 8.

 

[redrick]

Exactly.

After a time certain things become commonplace and "standard" communications.

i am all in with the "describe the odd" approach as opposed to the turn everything into defensive wording every time approach.

"PLAYER did not say you looked up", "PLAYER said you touched the lock", not as important to me for "good stuff happens" vs "bad stuff happens" as is **the character's skill**.

I think what Iserith is describing is not about using the players words against them to ambush them with "gotcha" consequences. At least when I play, I try not to have anything bad happen to players simply because they were vague in stating their actions. I'll ask them what they are doing and how they are doing it.

And it doesn't take very long. I don't go as far as the actions-only approach, but I assume that player questions mean, "From where I'm standing can I see that ..."

PLAYER: Is the door locked?
DM: You can't tell from where you're standing.
PLAYER: Hmm, I'll try and turn the handle.
DM: It doesn't turn. It's locked.

Or.

DM: As you start to turn the handle, you hear something scraping beneath your feet. Roll a Dex save!
PLAYER: Oh no, it was trapped!

It wouldn't really be fair to say:

PLAYER: Is it locked?
DM: You can't tell from where you're standing, so you go to turn the handle, and a trap door opens beneath your feet!

 

[Michael Silverbane]

In my experience it was never that bad. My players weren’t unwilling to give it a try, but there was a lot of “do I... Err, I mean... I try to remember (whatever)” which was just awkward.

What I do now is handle a lot of things that I’ve found to be awkward to phrase as questions via passive checks. If it’s difficult to phrase in terms of goal and approach, chances are that’s because it’s something you don’t actively do, like recalling information. So I don’t have players roll for those things, I check their passive scores and just give them the information.

This article by the Angry GM pretty perfectly sums up the process I stumbled into myself, although I use 10 as the base for passive checks instead of 8.

That was the next thing that I was going to ask about (would also like to hear from [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] about this). How do you handle adjudicating whether or not a character knows about or recognizes a thing in the fiction?

For example, in a game that I'm currently running, the characters have encountered some russet mold and some vegepygmies, who have the mark of the demon lord Zuggtmoy on them. After describing the scene, I said something along the lines of, "Anybody who's not a druid (because druids know all about russet molds and vegepygmies, also the druid was once a vegepygmie, before being reincarnated) can make a Nature check to identify these critters. Also everyone can make me a Religion or Planes check to identify that weird mark they're all carrying." And then I told them some stuff about vegepygmies, russet mold, Zuggtmoy, and so on. And there followed a bit of back and forth about those specific bits of lore.

 

[cmad1977]

That was the next thing that I was going to ask about (would also like to hear from [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] about this). How do you handle adjudicating whether or not a character knows about or recognizes a thing in the fiction?

For example, in a game that I'm currently running, the characters have encountered some russet mold and some vegepygmies, who have the mark of the demon lord Zuggtmoy on them. After describing the scene, I said something along the lines of, "Anybody who's not a druid (because druids know all about russet molds and vegepygmies, also the druid was once a vegepygmie, before being reincarnated) can make a Nature check to identify these critters. Also everyone can make me a Religion or Planes check to identify that weird mark they're all carrying." And then I told them some stuff about vegepygmies, russet mold, Zuggtmoy, and so on. And there followed a bit of back and forth about those specific bits of lore.

I would have set a Nature DC to compare against the Pcs skills instead of rolling.

Though rolling for the weird mark makes sense to me as the sages of the party study and compare.

But either way seems fine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[iserith]

That was the next thing that I was going to ask about (would also like to hear from [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] about this). How do you handle adjudicating whether or not a character knows about or recognizes a thing in the fiction?

For example, in a game that I'm currently running, the characters have encountered some russet mold and some vegepygmies, who have the mark of the demon lord Zuggtmoy on them. After describing the scene, I said something along the lines of, "Anybody who's not a druid (because druids know all about russet molds and vegepygmies, also the druid was once a vegepygmie, before being reincarnated) can make a Nature check to identify these critters. Also everyone can make me a Religion or Planes check to identify that weird mark they're all carrying." And then I told them some stuff about vegepygmies, russet mold, Zuggtmoy, and so on.

I describe things as faithfully (and succinctly) as I can manage, telegraphing any specific dangers, and then ask the players "What do you do?" A player might then say he or she tries to recall what the strange mark on the monsters might be (to use your example) and then justifies that using some aspect of the character, be it background, personal characteristic, class feature, something that happened previously in the game, or whatever. From there I can decide if the attempt to recall the lore is certain (success or fail) or uncertain (roll). So it looks like the part where you establish that beforehand and say who can roll what I put on the players. Like [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] I am going to err on the side of giving the players lots of actionable information and don't gate anything essential behind "knowledge rolls." If you're paying attention to the description of the environment, you should be able to deduce that the vegepygmies regenerate, are afraid of fire, cold, and necrotic damage, or that suspicious spores swirl about in some areas. Recalling lore confirms deductions and adds non-essential (but interesting and potentially useful) information.