D&D 5E Players Self-Assigning Rolls

[redrick]

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. ...

I like the idea, with knowledge checks, of encouraging players to say, "I try to remember if I've seen that symbol before. My character is proficient in Nature and Religion." Instead of, "I'm going to roll a Religion check to see if I know what that symbol means." (Especially because, as far as I'm concerned, a player trying to recall a symbol shouldn't have to specify which Knowledge skill they are using — if they know lots about Nature and Religion and recognize the symbol, though notes what area of knowledge it's under.)

These things are semantics, and can seem a little silly, but it does help focus the attention of everybody into a different area.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

Whereas I would most likely say something like, "Is that symbol something that [my character] might recognize?" And then my tendency would be to throw a die towards the middle of the table and wait for the DM to tell me what modifier to apply to it (which for many of the people in this thread would be cheating, apparently).

 

[iserith]

I like the idea, with knowledge checks, of encouraging players to say, "I try to remember if I've seen that symbol before. My character is proficient in Nature and Religion." Instead of, "I'm going to roll a Religion check to see if I know what that symbol means." (Especially because, as far as I'm concerned, a player trying to recall a symbol shouldn't have to specify which Knowledge skill they are using — if they know lots about Nature and Religion and recognize the symbol, though notes what area of knowledge it's under.)

These things are semantics, and can seem a little silly, but it does help focus the attention of everybody into a different area.

Yeah, that's along the lines of what you'd hear in my games. In a recent session, the PCs were traveling with an air genasi named Quiet Riot on Carceri, trying to escape the plane. As they climbed the mountains of Colothys, I dropped a little foreshadowing by describing a tattoo on Quiet Riot's back - the symbol of the Revolutionary League, a faction of anarchists that will come into play later in the game. The characters, all people from the Prime Material and with little to no knowledge of the planes or Sigil or its factions, are unlikely to know what that symbol is. (The players are also not familiar with the Planescape setting.)

That didn't stop Robert Bob Roberts, the hillbilly wizard, from trying to recall what that symbol was all about, drawing upon his Old Knowledge, a racial feature that gives him insight into ancient kingdoms and historical events. I figured that was sufficient to have a shot at knowing what this tattoo meant and asked for a roll. He aced it. I told him that there were obscure tales of shadowy groups affiliated with this symbol having brought down organizations and kingdoms in the distant past in violent revolutions. So they knew that maybe Quiet Riot might be a little shady and, when they encounter this symbol later in the game and put two and two together, it should have a decent impact.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

Yeah, that’s a great example. So personally, I don’t like “roll to see how much you know about the thing” checks. What I would do is include in my notes for the session what information the PCs have a chance of knowing or not knowing, and I set a DC for that information, as well as anything that might qualify a character to know the information without a check. So, in your example, I might jot down some brief notes about the appearance of the creatures, including that they’re wearing a “strange symbol”. Then, I would jot down a few more esoteric details and note that with an Intelligence (Nature) check of... let’s say 12, a PC recognizes these creatures as russet molds and vegepygmies, and that a Druid recieves this information with no check. Similarly, I would include a note about the “strange symbol” being recognizable as the symbol of Zuggtmoy with an Intelligence (Religion or Planes) check DC... let’s say 15, along with a few details about Zuggtmoy.

When I frame the scene, I’ll first mention anything not locked behind a check. Then I’ll check passive Intelligence and skill scores, and give the players any additional information they qualify for, being sure to point out that they know this because of that ability or skill. “Thanks to your training in Nature, you also know...” Or, “as a Druid, you’re very familiar with these creatures, and...” Or “You’re not trained in religion, but in your studies, you found...”

If the players miss information that is behind a passive check like this, I’ll still allow them to discover it with an active check, but that’s up to them to prompt with action. “Phew, that was a tough fight. Now, I want to vivisection one of these little bastards and see what makes it tick.” “Ok, make a (whatever) check.” ... “You discover (blah).” Similarly to how you might mention a hidden detail in a space immediately upon the PCs entering if anyone’s passive Perception is high enough, but if they miss it with their passive check they’ll have to go looking and making rolled checks.

It’s worth noting that the DC scale for passive checks like this is a little wonky. A DC10 passive check is automatically passed by anyone who doesn’t have both a negative modifier in the relevant ability and no training in any relevant skills or tools. The Angry GM handles this by setting passive scores as 8 + Modifier + a potential Proficiency bonus, but I don’t like it to look like I’m loweringbplayers’ stats from the baseline, so I leave passive scores as 10 + Mod + Prof. and bump up the DC on all passive checks by 2. So an Easy task is 12, moderate is 17, Hard is 22, etc.

 

[Bawylie]

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.

Well, I try to foreshadow that stuff in the setup or just prior to the encounter.

Just an easy example, but if I’m going to have ghouls or whatever, I described chewed and gnawed bits littering the area before they get there and maybe some graves that have been bust open from the inside. (I don’t actually know from vegepygmies, so I can’t suggest anything).

Remember the ecology entry from AD&D’s Monster Manual? That was always useful to me for this exact reason.

——
Now, re the locked door:

I’m more forgiving on questions than [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] is, I think. Where a question can reasonably be interpreted as shorthand for an action, I assume the action (of course my players understand this beforehand). So something like “How hurt is that guy?” is reasonably construed to be “Im looking over this person for signs of obvious injury.” Ok? No need to play with proper form there. But when we get to something like “Is the door locked?” I respond with “What do you do to find that out?”

Because I generally don’t want to assume player actions, particularly when the consequences might matter. It could be open, locked, trapped, or some ambush on the other side. The player doesn’t know and what they do can affect what happens next. They have to be the actor, so the question “is it locked” isn’t sufficient.

Hand in hand with that (players take actions and must live with the consequences), I try to resolve any ambiguities in the players’ favor. If a situation wasn’t clear and led to a bad decision, there’s a pretty good chance I didn’t make it clear enough.

Tying it altogether. You run into some burst open graves and some gnawed body parts. Ambushing you with ghouls somewhere down the line is now fair game. You get to a door and ask if it’s locked. Well, ghouls are waiting in ambush on the other side! I won’t assume your question is an action. I ask instead what you do to find out if it’s locked.

Anyway, that’s how I try to roll. A lot of the stuff I do works in conjunction with other stuff I do. It’s maybe overthinking it, but it works for me. And it really helps my dungeons. Man people complain about rust monsters! But when you find a couple of tool handles minus the tools, you can’t say I didn’t warn you.


-Brad

 

[robus]

Whereas I would most likely say something like, "Is that symbol something that [my character] might recognize?" And then my tendency would be to throw a die towards the middle of the table and wait for the DM to tell me what modifier to apply to it (which for many of the people in this thread would be cheating, apparently).

I don't think anyone here has claimed that to be cheating?! It's simply switching the gameplay 180˚. You're forcing the DM to adjudicate an action when they might not have deemed it necessary. It actually seems kind of confrontational when you put it that way.

 

[robus]

I think the problem with just allowing players to roll for knowledge is that there's nothing stopping the whole group from just tossing their dice on the table and hoping someone rolls high. And the odds say yes someone will and thus trivialize the encounter.

This might have been something the DM had put in to allow one of the players to show off their character. They might have been formulating an approach that dipped into their background and skills in order to justify why they might know this bit of lore and next to them, but a player just rushes in, rolls a nat-20 and says "Hey DM - I obviously know all about this because nat-20. So spill!"

When my players want to recall something I have them give reasons why their characters might have reason to know. It potentially enriches the character's backstory and adds something to the session. If they can't think of any reason then there's no reason for them to roll.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

I don't think anyone here has claimed that to be cheating?! It's simply switching the gameplay 180˚. You're forcing the DM to adjudicate an action when they might not have deemed it necessary. It actually seems kind of confrontational when you put it that way.

Some have done so, mostly obliquely, by calling it, "creative dice rolling" or something along those lines.

Also, the dice roll is only a tool that might be used in the adjudication. The question (or a statement of action and intent) is what requires adjudication. It would require such with or without a dice roll.

 

[Ristamar]

I don't think anyone here has claimed that to be cheating?!

Cheating? Not really.

Disruptive and annoying? Probably.

 

[Bawylie]

I don't think anyone here has claimed that to be cheating?! It's simply switching the gameplay 180˚. You're forcing the DM to adjudicate an action when they might not have deemed it necessary. It actually seems kind of confrontational when you put it that way.

It’s not cheating. But as a house rule, nobody rolls unless I ask for a roll. Mostly when you’re trained in a knowledge, and you’re recalling a fact, you get to recall that fact without a roll. I try to tie rolls to actual actions that have a chance to fail.

You want to find the dragon’s nest and don’t know where to look? A knowledge test can help you in the act of searching. You want to identify whether a person is cursed, poisoned, or diseased? A knowledge check could rule one out or confirm one.

But if it’s like “what’s this ritual?” and you’re trained in religion, I’m gonna tell you what it is, what it does, and how long it takes. Performing it yourself, or stopping someone else, might need the die roll.


-Brad