D&D 5E Players Self-Assigning Rolls

[5ekyu]

I think you're missing my point. The players are still pushing buttons, they're just doing it with a little pizzazz first. I'm not suggesting they ought to roll first or anything like that, even I ask for players to wait for me to call for a roll if for no other reason than simple decorum. What I'm saying is that the players probably know what they're good it. If the players aren't dummies they're going to usually play to their strengths. The "face guy" is still going to make most of the charisma-based checks, (and I want to add for a moment, the fact that Intimidate is a CHA skill is one of my biggest beefs with the skill system, since it's a skill that beefy-types should be good at without having to invest in a score largely irrelevant to their existence), the dex guys are going to make the sneaky checks, and so on and so forth. That's just how the game is set up to function.

Your only caveat is that they but a bow on the button before they push it.

I'm not saying that's wrong I'm saying that's what it is. Button-pushing by any other name is still button-pushing. A smart player can reasonably tailor their in-fiction approach to produce an requested die-roll that allows him to push the button of his desiring.

What you call button pushing i call role playing. It is very common for people to play to their strengths, to focus thru lenses based on thier interests etc.

There doesnt need to be some ooc conference for the face to step up in a scene and get his skill into the mix. In a barbie scene, a few words of "please, friend, last time we had this it took days to bury the bodies" or a few worried glances and suddenly they have a working together with advantage and possibly best skill roll bonus as well.

Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app

 

[5ekyu]

I think you're missing my point. The players are still pushing buttons, they're just doing it with a little pizzazz first. I'm not suggesting they ought to roll first or anything like that, even I ask for players to wait for me to call for a roll if for no other reason than simple decorum. What I'm saying is that the players probably know what they're good it. If the players aren't dummies they're going to usually play to their strengths. The "face guy" is still going to make most of the charisma-based checks, (and I want to add for a moment, the fact that Intimidate is a CHA skill is one of my biggest beefs with the skill system, since it's a skill that beefy-types should be good at without having to invest in a score largely irrelevant to their existence), the dex guys are going to make the sneaky checks, and so on and so forth. That's just how the game is set up to function.

Your only caveat is that they but a bow on the button before they push it.

I'm not saying that's wrong I'm saying that's what it is. Button-pushing by any other name is still button-pushing. A smart player can reasonably tailor their in-fiction approach to produce an requested die-roll that allows him to push the button of his desiring.

Btw i always tell my players that STR can be the ability for INT checks if their effort hinges around that approach. Its a default for beef style intimidation while CHA is a more subtle similar approach like say any number of stare downs or quiet whispers.

Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app

 

[Blue]

I'm totally with the sheep wizard on this one. Even if the player is merely trying to help speed up the game during social interactions and exploration, it often backfires because the player doesn't have complete information or a properly adjudicated approach. And then when you have to negate their good roll, time is wasted explaining why it isn't applicable. Pacing is disrupted. Immersion is shattered. All to potentially save the DM a few seconds because (s)he might ask for a roll?

It seems like to have the environment you are describing, not only do players have to be wrong on their anticipation of the roll from their actions, but also not accept that the DM is making a different call. That's a whole other problem and if the player is going to argue with the DM on what the appropriate roll is for a situation, they will do it regardless if the DM told it to them first if they think it's something else.

In other words, in the situation you describe, there would be an argument either way so not imposing any additional slowness. And can still improve when the player chooses correctly.

Either way though, I'd try to address that problem first.

 

[5ekyu]

It seems like to have the environment you are describing, not only do players have to be wrong on their anticipation of the roll from their actions, but also not accept that the DM is making a different call. That's a whole other problem and if the player is going to argue with the DM on what the appropriate roll is for a situation, they will do it regardless if the DM told it to them first if they think it's something else.

In other words, in the situation you describe, there would be an argument either way so not imposing any additional slowness. And can still improve when the player chooses correctly.

Either way though, I'd try to address that problem first.

Agree... I mean wasnt the gm going to describe why the disadvantsge to the roll applied anyway? Or well why did the player have no idea it was disadvantaged anyway?

Honestly in my game where advantage and disad is quite common from a variety of sources, the last time i had someone not know adv or dis applued was when it was an NPC special ability they did not know off.

Seems like there is some serious cracks in this narrative descriptive approach and all that (as some say) mechanics pushed to background) if when push comes to shove the players are so "often" unaware of which of the rather large groups of mechanical elements even apply to that massively wonderfully beautifully described and narrated scene.

Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app

 

[Ristamar]

It seems like to have the environment you are describing, not only do players have to be wrong on their anticipation of the roll from their actions, but also not accept that the DM is making a different call. That's a whole other problem and if the player is going to argue with the DM on what the appropriate roll is for a situation, they will do it regardless if the DM told it to them first if they think it's something else.

In other words, in the situation you describe, there would be an argument either way so not imposing any additional slowness. And can still improve when the player chooses correctly.

Either way though, I'd try to address that problem first.

They're both problems. That's the point. My players are fine, but no group or game is perfect, so I'd prefer to avoid unnecessary rolling that could exacerbate any potential issues.

 

[Ristamar]

"Often"???

Often???

If in my game it was "often" that the pcs got just plain wrong what abilities and proficiencies applied to tasks they are attempting, i would consider that a failure of me as a GM to run a reasobaly consistent game where mechanics and narrative go hand in hand. DnD 5e is not some mega-crunch rollmaster or such with tons of minute detail and uses proficiencies and abilities for most tasks.

The things a player can "get wrong" that can hurt their roll are does their proficiency apply, which abilitu is in play and is there disadvantage and if any of those are "often" not something they have a clue about then i as a player would not be feeling invested in the scene at all.

Thats part of the disconnect between the narrative approach investment and the GM control being so dead set on having both.

If you run such a marvelously wonderful immersive game, with such marvelous clues and hints and narrative engagements... Why then is it so often that your players are so clueless as to what all that narrative descriptive and immersive means for using that? How is it that all that narrative immersive descriptive engagement so often fails to give them enough understanding that they cant determine ability score or proficiencies that apply?



Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app

I don't know what to tell ya, man. People, at least the ones I know, can be prone to making hasty decisions, use irrational logic, succumb to biases, or find some other way make poor choices. And that's in the real world where they're able to fully utilize all five senses and not just rely on my droning voice as their lone guide.

But, sure, we can just chalk it all up to my failings as a DM.

 

[5ekyu]

I don't know what to tell ya, man. People, at least the ones I know, can be prone to making hasty decisions, use irrational logic, succumb to biases, or find some other way make poor choices. And that's in the real world where they're able to fully utilize all five senses and not just rely on my droning voice as their lone guide.

But, sure, we can just chalk it all up to my failings as a DM.

Yeah sure i get that but... In Real Life things are different than In The Game, right? You get that?

IRL

There are millions of pieces of data flowing in almost always from tons of sources...

ITG

In an RPG like 99% of the "outside world scene info" comes from one source - the GM. The otjer players of course add theirs but i doubt they are often the other side .

IRL

There are gaxillions of nuances of our capabilities and a judgement of those is not at all cut and dry.

ITG

Strong, smart, quick, smooth as quick buzzword labels for the most active atttibutes, add in aware for wisdom... Not that harf to categorize an approach to a task, right? They are pretty distinctive.

IRL (well also ITG) factors significant enough to impose dramatic difficulties are often right there and obvious... Well if it has been reported to the player accurately.

So, folks so often not having a clue between strong- smart- swift etc for ability that applies or "is this wreather making this climb more difficult etc would be a lot bigger a disconnect than just the IRL bad call, right?

And yes, if the GM is promoting the narrative descriptive engaging scene aspects but this kind of clueless disconnect happens often enough to be a problem... Where should that fault go? Where should that GM look to try and make that narrative, descriptive wonderously engaging approach actually serve to provide functional information as well?

If i dont know or reliably choose whether or not i am even using muscle or smarts or smooth talking by the way i as a playet describe my approach to a task, if i dont even have confidence that that approach involves one of my proficiencies by the way i define my actions or approaches **often enough to be disruptive** why am i trying to "determine" how i am going about things?

We use narrative and description so players can engage in scene more without mechanics... But it seems often that narrative and description left it unclear as to very basic elements of the conflict.

We focus on how our players approach problems letting their choices have a sigbificant impact... But it seems often the players dont actually have a clue about the links to resolutions their chouces make??

Huh?





Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app

 

[Ristamar]

Yeah sure i get that but... In Real Life things are different than In The Game, right? You get that?

It's all good. I'm a subpar narrative GM. We don't have to keep advertising it.

 

[Maxperson]

Some players will hate my approach, but I've done similar in the past. If a player keeps rolling before being asked to, despite already being asked to wait, then yes, I might introduce low DC, even if I would otherwise have given them an auto-success.

The player, by ignoring a simple request, has created the chance of failure.

However the reverse does not apply. If they roll before being asked and get a 20, and I deemed the task to be impossible, then they still fail.

...therefore a net loss for the player.

Yes, but I don't do that as any sort of passive aggressive act as some in this thread are calling it. Something impossible is........impossible. However, virtually anything can be failed. I've watches adults with 40+ years of walking trip over nothing(not even their own feet) and fall while walking across a flat surface. Maybe it took 4 or 5 1's in a row, but they managed to fail a task that simple. I was going to grant the simple, but failable task as an auto success, but by rolling ahead of me they made that failure an option. Dice are used when the outcome is in doubt. That said, if a task if just nearly impossible(by my standards, not the DC number), but not actually impossible and they roll ahead of me and drop a 20, I will give them a chance by requiring 1 or more further 20's depending on difficulty.

 

[Charlaquin]

Seems like there is some serious cracks in this narrative descriptive approach and all that (as some say) mechanics pushed to background) if when push comes to shove the players are so "often" unaware of which of the rather large groups of mechanical elements even apply to that massively wonderfully beautifully described and narrated scene.

I wouldn't really call it a crack in the approach, given that the players don't need to know what mechanics apply if such an approach is being used. If players decide their own roles, it's important for them to know what skills and abilities can be used to achieve what effects, so as not to ask for the wrong thing. Naturally, playing in a game run this way, one will quickly get used to what mechanical elements the DM considers appropriate for what tasks. However, in a game where the DM always tells the players what to roll, there is no need to learn what mechanical elements apply to what tasks. That's not part of the player's job in such a game.

It's kind of like saying that players not knowing how to handle a ball with their hands is a flaw of soccer versus American football. Strictly speaking that's true, but handling the ball with your hands isn't a skill a soccer player will ever need.

It could equally be said that reliance on one’s familiarity with the skill system is a flaw of the self-selecting rolls style. When players who are used to playing in games where initiating their own rolls is the norm switch to a game where the DM prefers players only to describe their actions and the DM tells them what to roll, it can be difficult for them to adjust; in fact, that is exactly the issue that this thread was initially created to get advice on addressing. Like an American football player switching to soccer, their instinct to catch the ball with their hands can get in the way. The player may have certain expectations about what to roll when that don’t match up with the DM’s style. I occasionally have players who are new to my games (but have played with other DMs who preferred the players to initiate their own rolls) to ask me if they can, for example, make a Perception check to look for something. In such cases, I usually tell them that a check might not even be necessary depending on their approach, and encourage them to tell me what they’re looking for and how. After a brief adjustment period, I’ve found that players often enjoy not having their success be so reliant on random chance. One player in particular often tells me how much he appreciates that I don’t make him roll all the time because he has terrible luck and hates failing checks his character should be good at due to low rolls.

I don’t think either style is superior to the other. It’s just a matter of personal preference. Some players, like the one I mentioned above, enjoy the immersion and freedom to succeed or fail by merit of their own creativity over stats and rolls. Some players would rather let the numbers and the dice do the talking and don’t want to come up with descriptions for everything they do. Both are equally valid play styles, and different DMing styles will serve different plauers’ preferences better.