D&D 5E Players Self-Assigning Rolls

[5ekyu]

Again, as with any discussion of sides or such it is not normally seen as a statement that everyone is exactly the same.

if your interpretation when i said "side" or "side(s)" that i meant it as universal, applying to everybody of some group, you are mistaken and i would wonder did you make similar posts about all the other posters who referenced in one way or the other what the others on other sides in broad terms seem to be saying?

Also, there was another example posted that emphasized the key in a drawer and whether or not the player said "on" or "in" and another where the description was smashing a goblet and others maybe i am wrong but i do not think they were all lanefan.

 

[Charlaquin]

First partial graph - see above - in a post i made a few moments ago - impossible goal stated 9moon) yet roll can determine important facts even with the goal not being achievable.

Where you suggested rolling to see if the player jumps high enough to clear the cover? Yeah, then the goal isn’t “get to the Moon,” it’s “get above the cover”, and the result is uncertain, so a dice roll is appropriate. In actual play that might look like:
Player: I try to jump to the Moon!
DM: Yeah, that’s not going to happen.
Player: But I might still get pretty high. Like over that cover, maybe.
DM: Ok, go ahead and make a Strength (Athletics) check. You won’t jump to the Moon, but you might clear the cover with a good roll.

Second partial graph - Also covered recently - the PHB itself lists a check for jumping unusually long distances.

Sure. Really not the point of my argument.

Third graph - first you seem confused here on this part since we are in the (portion you quoted) specifically discussing the case of not only where it was defining impossible goals" but also a case where the moon jump was not brought into play by me, where the responder to my post specifically cited the time it takes up as why to not make the roll for the moon jump. So, while your nice graph about cases that are not impossible defined goals is all good as it stands it seems to not be related in the least to the post and response you attached it too.

Ok, dude. If you want to evade my points instead of addressing them, that’s your call.

Fourth graph - I honestly cannot imagine how you missed this but i answered your question about why a roll might be made (or passive checks used) in the section you quoted - there right there. the results of the passive search or active roll would be made to use as a gauge for how much or what each character found during their search thru the graveyard... which maybe be as simple as "the character with the better search covers more ground more thoroughly than the others with lesser skills *or* knows the more likely places to turn up stuff and focuses on those first.

You say you ar rolling to see how much or what each character found. But you also say nothing is hidden. What are they “finding” if nothing is hidden? Isn’t that just called “seeing”?

So, in my campaign, examples like the ghost ships are cases where the group is dividing up and searching thru known cleared areas for stuff worth taking - even if nothing is "hidden" they still need to sort or stuff "worth taking" and stuff "not worth taking" in most cases.

Ok, here you answer my question. Thank you. Personally, in my game if the stuff they are looking for is not hidden or otherwise difficult for the players to locate, I wouldn’t make them roll. I’d just tell them what they find, since there are no stakes. If you prefer rolling to determine if the players miss things that are not hidden, that’s cool. You do you.

 

[5ekyu]

If the players are stating a goal and approach for which the outcome is certain failure, I will not call for a check. Instead, I will look to clarify with the player why they think their goal is possible. This could mean giving more information to the player about the scene, or it could mean asking the player what they think their character can do that I think they cannot. It could mean learning about a new spell or class feature that I did not fully understand and revising my own understanding of what is possible.

DM: You enter a small room. A worn stone table stands in the center of the room.
PLAYER: I pick up the table.
DM: It looks like it weighs a ton.
PLAYER: Oh, never mind.
PLAYER: Oh, ok. Guys, maybe we can all push this table together and get it to move across the room?
PLAYERS: Sounds like a great plan.
DM: Ok, only three of you can get around the table.
PLAYERS: Ok, Bob, Rob and Job will try to push the table towards the door.
DM: Great. You three, give me a group Athletics check.

in the case you describe, where i realized as you did that your description did not convey enough info for the players to know the actual case at hand, i would something similar.

Though, i likely would have phrased it as "Ok so the table looks very heavy, not something you would normally see moving on your own, so how do you plan to go about it?"

But if i had described the table clearly the first time, the "goal" would not affect the resolution.

More to the point, it has seemed that at times "goal" has been used to represent the "why" or "what do they hope to gain" as opposed to here in this case where the goal almost seems to be being used as an action declaration itself. i seem to recall one case of "climb the tree" where the reference to goal was what they planned to do after climbing the tree for instance.

 

[redrick]

in the case you describe, where i realized as you did that your description did not convey enough info for the players to know the actual case at hand, i would something similar.

Though, i likely would have phrased it as "Ok so the table looks very heavy, not something you would normally see moving on your own, so how do you plan to go about it?"

But if i had described the table clearly the first time, the "goal" would not affect the resolution.

More to the point, it has seemed that at times "goal" has been used to represent the "why" or "what do they hope to gain" as opposed to here in this case where the goal almost seems to be being used as an action declaration itself. i seem to recall one case of "climb the tree" where the reference to goal was what they planned to do after climbing the tree for instance.

Not describing the exact weight of the table may not have been a mistake. As a DM, I can't give the players all relevant details in one description. I can only hope to identify all potential features of interest. I know that, as play progresses, we will have the opportunity to refine the players' (and often the DM's) understanding of the space.

In this example, both the goal and the approach are clearly stated every time. (I will say that picking something up is a goal and approach in of itself, because it is a simple action.) The goal is to move the table towards the door. The approach is by three characters working together to push it across the ground. Both are stated, and, in this way, the DM can quickly adjudicate.

---EDITED TO ADD---

I'ma gonna nitpick your nitpick of my "it looks like it weighs a ton," because, fun! I mean, what you said is fine, but here's why I'd stick with what I said.

I assume that, once I tell the players that the table looks super heavy, they don't need me to tell them it's too heavy to just pick up. I also assume that, once the player learns that the big stone table weighs a ton, they might decide not to bother moving it. I wasn't necessarily expecting the characters to team up and push it across the room. I mean, honestly, why are they trying to move the big stone table anyway? Players man, they do the weirdest stuff.

 

[5ekyu]

Where you suggested rolling to see if the player jumps high enough to clear the cover? Yeah, then the goal isn’t “get to the Moon,” it’s “get above the cover”, and the result is uncertain, so a dice roll is appropriate. In actual play that might look like:
Player: I try to jump to the Moon!
DM: Yeah, that’s not going to happen.
Player: But I might still get pretty high. Like over that cover, maybe.
DM: Ok, go ahead and make a Strength (Athletics) check. You won’t jump to the Moon, but you might clear the cover with a good roll.


Sure. Really not the point of my argument.


Ok, dude. If you want to evade my points instead of addressing them, that’s your call.


You say you ar rolling to see how much or what each character found. But you also say nothing is hidden. What are they “finding” if nothing is hidden? Isn’t that just called “seeing”?


Ok, here you answer my question. Thank you. Personally, in my game if the stuff they are looking for is not hidden or otherwise difficult for the players to locate, I wouldn’t make them roll. I’d just tell them what they find, since there are no stakes. If you prefer rolling to determine if the players miss things that are not hidden, that’s cool. You do you.

first graph - no the goal was not to clear the cover... you keep explicitly changing the stated goal to fabricate a point about a response to an example with a stated goal. certainly an interesting approach and one that might work in some cases.

Second graph - but still one you felt necessary to point out. One might see that as an attempt to undermine an opposition view by pointing out what you perceived as a rules knowledge lack on their part. But, clearly that is not the case since you are one who goes after those kinds of things.

third graph - sorry if you feel it is a dodge if i point out that you shifted away from (but still referenced) a case of stated impossible goals to position against it using a case of specifically NOT THAT applied to the response. thats not dodging as much as exposing, IMO.

fourth graph - i do not know how to explain it more than i already have that might make it less confusing for you. I dont know of anyone who in the case of searching around a graveyard (or thru ghost ships) to find stuff would get hung up on or even use the word "seeing" and have a problem with "finding" being used but hey... its good that the "other side" doesn't get hung up on what specific word is used to describe things when it comes to actions and resolution, right?

Last graph... pretty sure that nowhere in that description did i say anything about missing things that are not hidden, and i am pretty sure you knew that already when you made that statement.

 

[Charlaquin]

in the case you describe, where i realized as you did that your description did not convey enough info for the players to know the actual case at hand, i would something similar.

Though, i likely would have phrased it as "Ok so the table looks very heavy, not something you would normally see moving on your own, so how do you plan to go about it?"

But if i had described the table clearly the first time, the "goal" would not affect the resolution.

See, this is an example of why goal is not the sole deciding factor of whether a roll is needed to resolve an action. The goal of “move the table” is potentially achievable, but not by the approach “by picking it up” or “by pushing it myself.” However, “by three of us pushing it together” does have a reasonable chance of succeeding in achieving the goal. And a reasonable chance of failing to achieve it. So a roll is made.

Of course, in earlier posts in this thread, you have claimed that when a player makes a roll and announced a result without waiting for your input, you resolve the check, possibly with results the player didn’t expect. So if this happened to you, and your player instead of waiting for you to point out that the table is too heavy to lift just said, “I lift the table! 17 on my Athletics check.” how would you resolve that?

More to the point, it has seemed that at times "goal" has been used to represent the "why" or "what do they hope to gain" as opposed to here in this case where the goal almost seems to be being used as an action declaration itself. i seem to recall one case of "climb the tree" where the reference to goal was what they planned to do after climbing the tree for instance.

The goal is part of the action. So is the approach. So an action like “I climb the tree” carries with it the implication that the player wants their character to get to the top of the tree by climbing it. You now have, without needing to ask the player to rephrase, a goal (get to the top of the tree) and an approach (by climbing it), and should use your judgment as a DM to determine if the goal is achievable by the states approach, any potential complications that might arise as a result of using the stated approach to achieve that goal, and the best mechanics to resolve that outcome.

 

[5ekyu]

Not describing the exact weight of the table may not have been a mistake. As a DM, I can't give the players all relevant details in one description. I can only hope to identify all potential features of interest. I know that, as play progresses, we will have the opportunity to refine the players' (and often the DM's) understanding of the space.

In this example, both the goal and the approach are clearly stated every time. (I will say that picking something up is a goal and approach in of itself, because it is a simple action.) The goal is to move the table towards the door. The approach is by three characters working together to push it across the ground. Both are stated, and, in this way, the DM can quickly adjudicate.

Ok so please i will exit that dance there

In your stated case you describe a table, the player declares an action then you stop before resolution to tell them it clearly looks like it weighs a ton and then the player uses that info to change their mind.

i reference it as a case of not having given the player enough info to make a reasonable choice.

then now you come back with how not giving an exact weight may not have been a mistake.

Not going to chase that rabbit down the hole with you any further. If you don't want to call it a mistake, thats great. i didn't call it a mistake either. i just observed that it seemed we both realized it was not enough info to lead or help the players to make reasonable choices. No mention of exact weight was made by me either and my example gave even more vague reference to its weight, no mention of "a ton" but rather that it looked like it was heavier than they could move on their own.

So, wherever you want to go with exact weight vs mistake vs descriptive needs etc... thats fine.

 

[Charlaquin]

first graph - no the goal was not to clear the cover... you keep explicitly changing the stated goal to fabricate a point about a response to an example with a stated goal. certainly an interesting approach and one that might work in some cases.

That ”interesting approach that might work in some cases” is the goal-and-approach method of action resolution. When the player states a goal that is impossible to achieve by their stated approach, you don’t roll dice to see what else happens. You re-frame the action in terms of a different goal and approach.

Player: I try to jump to the Moon! (Here the DM ascertains a goal - get to the moon - and an approach - by jumping, and makes a judgment call about whether or not the approach can reasonably achieve the goal)
DM: Yeah, that’s not going to happen (here the DM informs the player of the results of their action)
Player: Yeah, but I could still get pretty high. Like over that cover maybe. (Here the player re-frames their action. Now the DM ascertains the goal - get over the cover - and the approach - by jumping. The DM might instead have suggested this different framing themselves. For example, “You can’t jump to the Moon. The best you can hope for is to jump over that cover. Want to try?”)
DM: Ok, go ahead and make a Dexterity (Athletics) check. (Here the DM has determined that the approach has a reasonable chance of succeeding in achieving the goal, a reasonable chance of failing to achieve the goal, and the appropriate method for resolving the outcome.)

Second graph - but still one you felt necessary to point out. One might see that as an attempt to undermine an opposition view by pointing out what you perceived as a rules knowledge lack on their part. But, clearly that is not the case since you are one who goes after those kinds of things.

I pointed it out for the sake of clarity. But whatever, it’s not an important distinction. I’ll gladly withdraw the objection if it means you’ll address my actual argument.

third graph - sorry if you feel it is a dodge if i point out that you shifted away from (but still referenced) a case of stated impossible goals to position against it using a case of specifically NOT THAT applied to the response. thats not dodging as much as exposing, IMO.

K. Like I said, if you don’t want to address that point, that’s up to you.

fourth graph - i do not know how to explain it more than i already have that might make it less confusing for you. I dont know of anyone who in the case of searching around a graveyard (or thru ghost ships) to find stuff would get hung up on or even use the word "seeing" and have a problem with "finding" being used but hey... its good that the "other side" doesn't get hung up on what specific word is used to describe things when it comes to actions and resolution, right?

Well, you answered the question. You said the roll was to see what valuables they found, despite none of them being hidden. That makes sense to me. It’s not the way I would run it, but that’s fine. You do you.

Last graph... pretty sure that nowhere in that description did i say anything about missing things that are not hidden, and i am pretty sure you knew that already when you made that statement.

If nothing is hidden, and nothing that is not hidden can be missed, what is the roll being used to determine?

 

[redrick]

Ok so please i will exit that dance there

In your stated case you describe a table, the player declares an action then you stop before resolution to tell them it clearly looks like it weighs a ton and then the player uses that info to change their mind.

i reference it as a case of not having given the player enough info to make a reasonable choice.

then now you come back with how not giving an exact weight may not have been a mistake.

Not going to chase that rabbit down the hole with you any further. If you don't want to call it a mistake, thats great. i didn't call it a mistake either. i just observed that it seemed we both realized it was not enough info to lead or help the players to make reasonable choices. No mention of exact weight was made by me either and my example gave even more vague reference to its weight, no mention of "a ton" but rather that it looked like it was heavier than they could move on their own.

So, wherever you want to go with exact weight vs mistake vs descriptive needs etc... thats fine.

I'm sorry, the point of saying "it's not a mistake" is not to avoid fault on the part of this hypothetical DM. Maybe it was a 'mistake' to omit the information, maybe it wasn't. The point was to illustrate how an action resolution method goes about refining our knowledge about the fictional world our characters inhabit. This is what I mean when I talk about engaging the fiction. It's not possible, as a DM, to completely describe every actionable detail of the game-space. Nor would that really be desirable.

 

[5ekyu]

See, this is an example of why goal is not the sole deciding factor of whether a roll is needed to resolve an action. The goal of “move the table” is potentially achievable, but not by the approach “by picking it up” or “by pushing it myself.” However, “by three of us pushing it together” does have a reasonable chance of succeeding in achieving the goal. And a reasonable chance of failing to achieve it. So a roll is made.

Of course, in earlier posts in this thread, you have claimed that when a player makes a roll and announced a result without waiting for your input, you resolve the check, possibly with results the player didn’t expect. So if this happened to you, and your player instead of waiting for you to point out that the table is too heavy to lift just said, “I lift the table! 17 on my Athletics check.” how would you resolve that?


The goal is part of the action. So is the approach. So an action like “I climb the tree” carries with it the implication that the player wants their character to get to the top of the tree by climbing it. You now have, without needing to ask the player to rephrase, a goal (get to the top of the tree) and an approach (by climbing it), and should use your judgment as a DM to determine if the goal is achievable by the states approach, any potential complications that might arise as a result of using the stated approach to achieve that goal, and the best mechanics to resolve that outcome.

First graph - i find it odd that as much as i have said the goal should not in my games or in appaoaches like mine play much if any role in the determination of the action and its result (exception for where the goal provides clarity for an insufficiently clear action) folks seem to think its worth it to tell me how goal is not the same as approach or method and that goal should not be the determiner of auto-s/f. That seems to be more agreeing with me than not but it often seems presented in the reverse.

Second graph - As i answered this in my earlier post for a case of the more generic wording of action where the GM wanted it to be that the table could not be moved or "weighs a ton" , let me cover it here in more depth for the more likely action plus roll case i would encounter in my games that you have now brought up...

**HAD** I not described the table correctly or adequately to make it clear it was heavy *AND* it was important to the scene that the table cannot be moved alone, i would tell the player that its obvious to their character that the table is way too heavy to move based on their experience with moving, pushing hauling stuff it and a closer examination. Then I would ask them to describe their approach if they still want to try and move it - pretty much as described above. this would likely be described as a case of what they figured out when they tried, not as a case of it being as obvious just by looking, given i did not include that originally... again unless that particular element is important or critical to the scene.

However, a key element is this - if it was *important to the scene* that the table cannot be moved by one person, then (barring just flat out error on my part) i *would* have thrown in a word like massive, heavy or something into the original description. Or if it was important to the scene that the table cannot be moved alone but it looks like it could (plot point of why is this table stuck here so solidly i can't move it") that might be not an error or omission in description at all.

If it was *not* important to the scene whether or not the table can be moved, then i would at that assign in my mind up a description of the table that made it possible the table can be moved and then adjudicate the result as normally - especially if the character was a high strength proficient in athletics character. 17 is enough to beat moderate DCs so... likely its a success and i continue appropriately.

Remember the rule of yes i mentioned from time to time - "say yes unless their is a compelling reason to say no." odds are with a 17 (esp for a high strength and athletic character), the result is a moved table. 17 beats moderate DC and moving a table is something even i can do and my physical abilities which are well below what would pass as moderate in that game world. heck, my own
personal stats would not be legal scores on a point buy where 8 is the lowest, but i can move every table in my house and most tables i encounter.

So, barring a compelling reason to say no... on a roll of 17, you move the table and we move on to what happens then.

hope that helps.