D&D 5E Players Self-Assigning Rolls

[Sunseeker]

yup.

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

And that brings up a great tertiary point. People suck at remembering. Three pages ago? Three days ago? Three sessions ago? Three years ago? Doesn't make a difference.

I can however guarantee you that an hour later in a session, 1 or fewer people will remember the exact words the player used on the 57th attempt to search the room.

 

[5ekyu]

And that brings up a great tertiary point. People suck at remembering. Three pages ago? Three days ago? Three sessions ago? Three years ago? Doesn't make a difference.

I can however guarantee you that an hour later in a session, 1 or fewer people will remember the exact words the player used on the 57th attempt to search the room.

Yes... for sure but how often will the two remember the same words???!!?!?!?!?!?



i find it amusing when players still having a disagreement in character (and somewhat out of character) ask me pointedly which one is remembering what the other said exactly in the middle of their fight from two sessions ago!



And that, boys and girls, **is** a case where player actions CAN lead to wandering monsters of the "should have worn the brown trousers" variety.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

You're making a good argument for ditching most of the skill system entirely; an argument I've been in favour of since 3e.

The trade-off is that a player can never have a character who is more clever than they are - you would have to be Batman in order to role-play a character who can find traps as well as he can, and you would have to be Squirrel Girl if you want to role-play a character who can talk the villain out of their master plan. Characters can have whatever physical or magical stats you feel like, but the mental stats are always limited by the capability of the player. Does that sound like a fun game to you? Or is it simply preferable to the alternative?

 

[Lanefan]

The trade-off is that a player can never have a character who is more clever than they are - you would have to be Batman in order to role-play a character who can find traps as well as he can, and you would have to be Squirrel Girl if you want to role-play a character who can talk the villain out of their master plan. Characters can have whatever physical or magical stats you feel like, but the mental stats are always limited by the capability of the player. Does that sound like a fun game to you? Or is it simply preferable to the alternative?

Far preferable to the alternative, even more so if the DM recognizes the limitations of the player vs. the character and cuts slack if the character's better than the player (e.g. me trying to play Int 20) or gets harsh if the player's better than the character (e.g. me trying to play Int 5).

 

[Charlaquin]

Honestly, at the end of the day, you can only play the characters you can play. Even in a system with complex and detailed skill mechanics, you can’t really play Batman if you’re not Batman because you don’t make decisions the way he would. Better, I think, to keep Abilities and Skills as a weighting factor to the randomized task resolution system and let people otherwise roleplay how they want to roleplay.

 

[Satyrn]

The trade-off is that a player can never have a character who is more clever than they are - you would have to be Batman in order to role-play a character who can find traps as well as he can, and you would have to be Squirrel Girl if you want to role-play a character who can talk the villain out of their master plan. Characters can have whatever physical or magical stats you feel like, but the mental stats are always limited by the capability of the player. Does that sound like a fun game to you?

Yes. Absolutely 100% Yes.


It not only sounds fun to me, it is fun for me. I know because that's how I play. It's how I prefer to play.

 

[Hriston]

Another thing is you don't have to be Batman to play D&D, and there's no reason to believe Batman would be better at playing it than anyone else. D&D can be played by anyone of about average intelligence, social skills, etc., and any reward the game may give for being above average in that regard is limited by diminishing returns.

 

[Satyrn]

Another thing is you don't have to be Batman to play D&D, and there's no reason to believe Batman would be better at playing it than anyone else.

Batman would be a terrible murderhobo.

 

[Charlaquin]

Batman would be a terrible murderhobo.

But a great assaultandbatteryhobo!

 

[Sunseeker]

Batman would be a terrible murderhobo.

Unless it's Thomas Wayne Batman. Then he would be the ultimate murderhobo.