D&D 5E Players Self-Assigning Rolls

[Greenstone.Walker]

In my experience, it has often gone like this:

GM: You enter a small room. A worn stone table stands in the center of the room.
Player: I pick up the table. *Rolls* I got 21.
GM: It looks like it weighs a ton.
Player: I got a 21.
GM: The table is too heavy to lift.
Player: That's not fair! I got a 21! Why can't I lift the table? I succeeded on the roll!

Or to put it another way, I've found a high correlation between players that roll early and players who don't accept that "automatic failure" is a possible outcome.

 

[Charlaquin]

In my experience, it has often gone like this:

GM: You enter a small room. A worn stone table stands in the center of the room.
Player: I pick up the table. *Rolls* I got 21.
GM: It looks like it weighs a ton.
Player: I got a 21.
GM: The table is too heavy to lift.
Player: That's not fair! I got a 21! Why can't I lift the table? I succeeded on the roll!

Yyyyyyyyyep.

 

[Sunseeker]

Sure. But what if they don't search the table? What if they only search the walls for secret doors and then give up and move on? What if they don't search anything in this room?

Then that wasn't my example and is completely irrelevant?

I mean if the secret door is reasonably near an object and my players just aren't searching that object for whatever reason, I may drop some hints.

Lets say the players are just not searching the table, for whatever reason. I might drop in "As you search the completely mundane wooden walls of this completely mundane wooden house you notice that there appears to be only one stone object in the room." Or "As you example the construction of this house, you notice that it is all very old, very worn, and very well used, except for the table which appears to be completely new."

I don't go through all the hard work to develop interesting elements for my players just to have them miss it. I don't care if my players are defeating my dungeons simply because I tipped my hand. I DO care greatly that they missed this super cool dungeon because they didn't bother to search the table!

And yes, what if they do search the table and outright fail to find or notice anything? (the instance I have in mind here would be a two-step process - you need to move the table before you can get at the floor beneath it, then you need to search there for the secret door) So here they could search the table and on a bad roll fail to notice any scratches in the floor; or they could simply move the table to start with (as the PCs in the original example did) and then fail to find - or even look for - the secret door.

In my case, the second part of this wouldn't even exist. The fact that they've zeroed in on the table covering something suspicious would mean discovery of the secret door in the floor is a matter of time, not a matter of chance. The door may be obvious:

And once the table is moved you'd have to be blind to miss it.
The door may be nearly inconspicuous:

But retains a noticeable tell that you wouldn't need a check for.

Quite honestly, moving the table may have revealed the passagway on it's own.

The "But did you search the floor?" reeks of that example some pages back where a player searched the closet, but didn't search the hangar-bar and thus it was missed. It's pixel-whining lite. The next step is "But what if they didn't search each board on the floor?" and then "But what if they didn't search each nail for the one that is secretly not a nail and actually a key?"

I don't go there because I'm not interested in wasting my time. I'm not interested in wasting their time. And that's all it is: a waste of time.

 

[Lanefan]

Then that wasn't my example and is completely irrelevant?

I mean if the secret door is reasonably near an object and my players just aren't searching that object for whatever reason, I may drop some hints.

Lets say the players are just not searching the table, for whatever reason. I might drop in "As you search the completely mundane wooden walls of this completely mundane wooden house you notice that there appears to be only one stone object in the room." Or "As you example the construction of this house, you notice that it is all very old, very worn, and very well used, except for the table which appears to be completely new."

I don't go through all the hard work to develop interesting elements for my players just to have them miss it. I don't care if my players are defeating my dungeons simply because I tipped my hand. I DO care greatly that they missed this super cool dungeon because they didn't bother to search the table!

Meh, if the dungeon they've missed is that cool I can always recycle it in another adventure sometime - all is not lost.

Or recycle it in this one - party think they've finished and get back to town, only to be told by an annoyed Duke a week or two later that the place is still active somehow and could they *please* sort it out properly this time!

The "But did you search the floor?" reeks of that example some pages back where a player searched the closet, but didn't search the hangar-bar and thus it was missed. It's pixel-whining lite. The next step is "But what if they didn't search each board on the floor?" and then "But what if they didn't search each nail for the one that is secretly not a nail and actually a key?"

I don't go there because I'm not interested in wasting my time. I'm not interested in wasting their time. And that's all it is: a waste of time.

I guess we differ then, as what you see as a waste of time I see as a legitimate part of the game. Sure it can be taken too far, I agree there...but if some session time is spent in actively pixel-beeing a room I'm quite cool with it.

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

You bite the bear, and it runs away. A storm blocks the East. And don't even think about going South.

>Go West

 

[Maxperson]

Do you realize that post was in direct response to a claim which said there would be no roll because the goal of the jump to the moon was not in doubt?

So I said "red" and you directly responding with "No, because blue". Then I pointed out that your blue was actually purple and contained red, depending on circumstances.

In my post while the goal of jumping to the other side of the bridge span was not in doubt, i could still use a skill check to determine relevant aspects about the scenario and the effort.

Again as i have said likely more times than i can count (and which that exchange highlights) the goal might have a place to the action if it clarifies some aspects of the effort but the goal *should* not IMo be a form of gatekeeper for whether or not a roll is made.

The goal isn't the gatekeeper. Circumstances are. That's why in your example, there would be a roll if the outcome of the results of the jump was in doubt(river or land), but not if it was all land and didn't matter. The goal also failed, but the circumstances around the goal and action both are what determines auto success, auto failure, or outcome in doubt and a roll.

 

[Maxperson]

Are you sure you want to? I won't do that after marriage, either.

[MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] Oh, man! She totally Baloo you off.

 

[5ekyu]

Now this is something that annoys me: DMs red-flagging what's important via how they describe things. It's just another form of lead-'em-by-the-nose, really.

The relative importance (if any) of moving the table isn't known to the characters when they enter the room, and it's up to them to figure it out. The presence of the table at all might be a 'tell' if surrounding rooms have been completely empty, for example; and if they think to move it and search the floor revealed they might find a secret door leading down to a whole new level. But if they don't think to move it they'll miss that level - so be it.

Yeah, I guess I'm not a proponent of the 'rule of yes' when taken to the point that some game systems seem to want. There's no rule saying characters have to succeed at whatever they try, or be compass-pointed at the real clues. Red herrings and false trails are allowed, and if a session or two are spent on following them so what? They're allowed to miss things, they're expected to fail now and then, and - just like real life - sometimes they're going to get frustrated because they can't find what they're looking for. (continued example from upthread: they missed the key in the dresser drawer on level one and now they can't release the captured princess on level 3 without chopping her hands off)

As for real-world examples: one of my players has an oak table in his place - two strong people can barely lift it. Were that same table made of stone: good luck.

Lanefan

Well, i did not mean for mentioning the table's weight to be red flagging. Its more a case of it is unlikely i had even considered the weight unless it was important. if it was important the weight would have been made more obvious just like other elements of the room were. it would not have been glossed over. Being *8important to the scene does not mean it is a clue or a fact that leads somewhere, it can of course but it could also be "too heavy to move to block a door".

As for me, i have a stone and iron "table" on my patio that i can move by myself (and i am an old weak curmudgeon), but change that to a completely different type of "table" and its obviously not possible. heck, if the table in my kitchen just changed to stone, i could not move it.

But hey, now i am tired just typing about moving tables.

EDIT TO FINISH

As for RoY, certainly it is not for everyone or for every game and like any any approach can have its drawbacks.

But for me, it serves as a good way to step away from ye olde "player must prove success" kind of thinking that sometimes can accompany systems with a significant and heavy die-roll. it also does not have to be married to players succeed at everything. A lot depends on how compelling a Gm needs it to be. if the group weakling (strength penalty) tried to move the "worn stone table" i would feel more compelled to turn it into a check (or even choose to narrate it as a heavier table that gave him no chance) at least, so as to bring the stronger character into the affair - as that helps spotlight that mechanical difference between their characters. One sees their "purchased weakness cost them while the other sees their purchased strength pay off - even if it does not lead to anything more than the moment.

 

[5ekyu]

I think he just meant that if the DM had meant for the table's weight to be its defining feature, then to not mention that up front would be a (very small) mistake. The sort of mistake that has me (figuratively) kicking myself and thinking danggit! I was gonna describe that better."

Sort of like if I've described a 100-foot wide chasm poorly enough that the players say "we'll jump across it."

Exactly... i am the sole vehicle for the character's senses and like i have said many times before it is an absolute goal of mine that i and my players stay on the same page as to expectations of what can and cannot be done by their characters in a scene. i want "odd results" to be "clues" not just "things we come to expect."

So whenever i get such a case, the first place I look is what I did that misleads them.

 

[5ekyu]

Sure, and that's the sort of thing that when a player "Searches the table." notices some worn scuff-marks on the floor on one side of the table.

It's fine for players to miss things, but I find pixel-whining in either direction a waste of everyone's time. If I rolled a search of the table and then 2 sessions later we're all wonderning what we missed and the DM explained the table moved and I on't didn't notice it because I didn't say "I search the floor immediately around the table for any signs of scuff marks indicating the table moves." I'd tell him where he can put his magic words.

yup.

"was it "in" the furniture or "on" the furniture that the player said three rooms ago?