D&D 5E Players Self-Assigning Rolls

[Phazonfish]

uhhh we definitely have an issue of what "trustworthy" means.

I don't think we do; there's a difference between "trustworthy" and "capable of doing no wrong". If I don't trust someone in that situation, it's not necessarily because I don't trust them in general, it's because poisoning the well makes ANY decision they make dubious. Them getting the information ahead of time just sets the whole situation up for failure.

in answer to your question, if i had already decided which one to pick, i would keep to that regardless of roll.
if i had not decided which to pick, i would roll randomly. because **obviously** i was not being "picky" about it before i rolled, so no need to be suddenly "picky" about it after the roll. But, honestly, most of the time my response would be "i dont care, you pick one" and wait for the fun.

I don't think you understand the situation fully. You say things like "if I had already decided which one to pick" but you never had the opportunity to pick because you weren't told the options because you rolled before you could be told. Your stated default response of allowing the DM to pick is a healthy attitude, but not all players are you, so allowing pre-rolling is just setting up for the time where someone throws a fit because the DM picked for them. Maybe you run with players where this will never happen. That's fine, but not the case for everyone.

IF i had a Gm who had shown that it was a bad idea to be this "devil may care" and who had shown a penchant for "not default to competence" then of course they would have taught me that *for that game* this kind of "loose specification" was a bad idea and i would handle it differently. Just like "you did not say you looked up" taught certain behaviors back in the day.

I mean, you can't just always assume total competence; before we even start playing, should we just assume the characters did everything right, end of story, pack up and call it a day?

But as stated, i can DEFINITELY see not wanting players to be ****ALLOWED**** (insert booming echo chamber effects and likely use Morgan Freeman's voice for that word) to pre-roll checks for GMs who have concerns about trust or trust issues with their players.

This would be a nice "I think we understand each other well enough, let's end here" moment if you had simply written that in a manner other than that of a reluctant apology that a child only gives because his parents made him.

 

[5ekyu]

I don't think we do; there's a difference between "trustworthy" and "capable of doing no wrong". If I don't trust someone in that situation, it's not necessarily because I don't trust them in general, it's because poisoning the well makes ANY decision they make dubious. Them getting the information ahead of time just sets the whole situation up for failure.



I don't think you understand the situation fully. You say things like "if I had already decided which one to pick" but you never had the opportunity to pick because you weren't told the options because you rolled before you could be told. Your stated default response of allowing the DM to pick is a healthy attitude, but not all players are you, so allowing pre-rolling is just setting up for the time where someone throws a fit because the DM picked for them. Maybe you run with players where this will never happen. That's fine, but not the case for everyone.



I mean, you can't just always assume total competence; before we even start playing, should we just assume the characters did everything right, end of story, pack up and call it a day?



This would be a nice "I think we understand each other well enough, let's end here" moment if you had simply written that in a manner other than that of a reluctant apology that a child only gives because his parents made him.

First part... trustworthy means "worthy of your trust". If as you say you will not trust them to make these decisions **you** are declaring them "untrustworthy" - maybe you feel everybody is untrustworthy but then again maybe not. But if you look at the second part which you separated from this, even you recognize there can be a "healthy response" by which i assume you would consider "trustworthy" as in you would trust me doing that. So, doesn't that example make your claim that "poisoning the well makes any decision dubious" actually a dubious claim?

Also, no, i did not misunderstand. i gave two cases - one was "if i had decided" the other was "if i had not decided" and gave a complete answer.

And i am sorry but... anybody who believes rules are what causes fits to be thrown or that rules can prevent fits from being thron at their table has a very flawed idea of what causes fits and other such outlandish behavior in social situations. I don't write rules or use rules to "prevent fits".

Also, i have never claimed this approach was good for everyone, i even acknowdlegd several times. But just as clearly, it is fine for some. If you look back on this thread and others, there seems to be no shortage of "pre-rolling is bad" or "pre-rolling leads to" with much broader kinds of scope than I have tended to use for when pre-rolling is fine.

As for your "total competence.. call it a day" nonsense, thats not what was being referenced - hence my not saying "total competence" at all!! - you should maybe look at that blog the Op referenced (not my first rec tho) or go google things like presume competence" and such as it applies to RPG. it refers to a trust state between Gm and players where the Gm treats scenes and events and general play habits as if the **characters** are acting at their general level of competence without the players needing to state every second of every turn of every scene in exceutiating detail to prevent a thumping from beyond.

EXAMPLE: "you did not say you looked up so the macguffin gets surprise". vs "on getting to the door, you see in and... the first thing that catches you eyes are the macguffins up on the ceiling. You almost missed them but..." when a parties passive per would spot the threat OR when a deliberate check to "look into the roll" rolls high enough even without the "i look up" safe words.

it has nothing to do at all with your totally imagined case of the characters win without the players so call it a day crap.

Finally, there was no attempt at apology in that last comment. if you read into it such, you were in error.

Rules will not solve trust issues. They will just shift where that underlying trust breakdown manifests.
Rules will not prevent inappropriate behavior like fits.
Most games, like most relationships which a game is, are better served by solving the underlying trust issues or behavioral problems than by patching more and more "restrictions."

Your cheating spouse wont be "more faithful" or you "less suspicious of them" because you install a tracker on their phone and take away their inner-city apartment - any more than you being dubious about a player's ability to make "reasonable choices" will be solved by not allowing "pre-rolling." that same "worry" about his "poisoned well thoughts" is gonna be there when he sees scenes with other characters that his is not at and later a choice comes up where "are you really sure his decision wasn't poisoned by tat out of character knowledge?" and a million other cases.

If you resolve the trust issue to a point where you and them are fine with each other and that decision making, those issues can be non-problems with an occasional ooops and not an underlying sense of "suspicion."

Deal with player-to-player trust in player-to-player not in game mechanics.

 

[Phazonfish]

First part... trustworthy means "worthy of your trust".

Indeed, and just because a person is trustworthy in general, does not mean they are trustworthy in every situation under the sun.

maybe you feel everybody is untrustworthy but then again maybe not. But if you look at the second part which you separated from this, even you recognize there can be a "healthy response" by which i assume you would consider "trustworthy" as in you would trust me doing that.

I said every "decision" is dubious. The response of yours that I said was healthy was to not make a decision at all (by letting the DM do it for you).

So, doesn't that example make your claim that "poisoning the well makes any decision dubious" actually a dubious claim?

Nope, see above.

Also, no, i did not misunderstand. i gave two cases - one was "if i had decided" the other was "if i had not decided" and gave a complete answer.

Giving a case for "if I had decided" in a scenario where this occurs 0% of the time (because you were not given a decision to make yet) implies you thought it was necessary to do so, which it is not.

And i am sorry but... anybody who believes rules are what causes fits to be thrown or that rules can prevent fits from being thron at their table has a very flawed idea of what causes fits and other such outlandish behavior in social situations. I don't write rules or use rules to "prevent fits".

There is a fair deal of truth to this, but it's foolish to think that the rules play no part at all in it. Sure, such a conflict between players (including both PCs and DMs) may exist regardless of the rules, but the system in place often determines whether such conflicts are dredged up or swept under the rug.

Also, i have never claimed this approach was good for everyone, i even acknowdlegd several times.

That's true, and I'm sure more people would except those acknowledgements if you didn't tend imply in the same breath that those that don't like this approach has trust issues.

As for your "total competence.. call it a day" nonsense, thats not what was being referenced - hence my not saying "total competence" at all!! - you should maybe look at that blog the Op referenced (not my first rec tho) or go google things like presume competence" and such as it applies to RPG. it refers to a trust state between Gm and players where the Gm treats scenes and events and general play habits as if the **characters** are acting at their general level of competence without the players needing to state every second of every turn of every scene in exceutiating detail to prevent a thumping from beyond.

EXAMPLE: "you did not say you looked up so the macguffin gets surprise". vs "on getting to the door, you see in and... the first thing that catches you eyes are the macguffins up on the ceiling. You almost missed them but..." when a parties passive per would spot the threat OR when a deliberate check to "look into the roll" rolls high enough even without the "i look up" safe words.

it has nothing to do at all with your totally imagined case of the characters win without the players so call it a day crap.

I know what it means to presume competence, and I know the result I gave is nonsense and crap; that was the point. If you take this concept and misapply it you get said nonsense.

Finally, there was no attempt at apology in that last comment. if you read into it such, you were in error.

Once again, your taking an analogy literally, hence the words "in a manner". I didn't take it as an apology. My point is people aren't going to take any of your attempts to agree to disagree seriously if you go out of your way to make them sound as insincere and insulting as possible.

Rules will not solve trust issues. They will just shift where that underlying trust breakdown manifests.
Rules will not prevent inappropriate behavior like fits.
Most games, like most relationships which a game is, are better served by solving the underlying trust issues or behavioral problems than by patching more and more "restrictions."

If you resolve the trust issue to a point where you and them are fine with each other and that decision making, those issues can be non-problems with an occasional ooops and not an underlying sense of "suspicion."

Or we could sidestep the whole issue by not self-assigning roles. As you say this won't prevent all conflicts, but we're not talking about those (or so the title of the thread tells me)

Deal with player-to-player trust in player-to-player not in game mechanics.

You're absolutely correct here. In an earlier post I stated that the first thing you should do is discuss this with your players. The game mechanics being discussed are what to do when they refuse to heed the DMs request but also refuse to walk away from the table, and even then this only a discussion of mechanics because you have to resolve the check somehow.

 

[JonnyP71]

The player narrates the action, the DM decides the relevant skill and the difficulty.

I go as far as saying if the skill is knowledge or stealth related, the DM can also make the roll behind a screen - I subscribe to the 1E default that a character attempting to be stealthy will always believe they are successful, and similarly that a PC attempting a perception or investigation check will believe they have all the relevant information. There's no need for the player to be aware of the roll, and therefore have any idea as to whether or not their action was a success.

 

[the_redbeard]

The player narrates the action, the DM decides the relevant skill and the difficulty.

I go as far as saying if the skill is knowledge or stealth related, the DM can also make the roll behind a screen - I subscribe to the 1E default that a character attempting to be stealthy will always believe they are successful, and similarly that a PC attempting a perception or investigation check will believe they have all the relevant information. There's no need for the player to be aware of the roll, and therefore have any idea as to whether or not their action was a success.

Good point. Yet another reason: the player sometimes shouldn't know if their character succeeded and the die roll would give that away.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Awful lot of badwrongfun vibes in this thread. If your players are spontaneously rolling dice, then that's clearly what they want to be doing when they play D&D. And, y'know, the game doesn't exactly discourage that behavior. Dice are bright and colorful and interestingly shaped, and they make a pleasant rattling noise as they tumble, and there's that quasi-gambling flutter of uncertainty. All that is as valid a part of the experience as roleplaying encounters or navigating mazes or figuring out puzzles or anything else. The d20, in particular, is as much of an icon for D&D as the dungeon or the dragon. So rather than complain about the fact that your players are engaging enthusiastically with this side of the game... maybe reconsider your own attitude towards it.

 

[Lanefan]

First bold - that is at best a feeling not an axiom. to me a player rolling a dice and telling a result as he describes his action is not disruptive at all. its efficient. "i rolled a 17" is not less "gamey" or more "gamey" than " i go over to the bar and try and lift his purse."

"I rolled a 17" is a game-mechanical statement said out of character and is thus as 'gamey' as it gets. "I go over to the bar and try and lift his purse" is an in-character statement of action; far preferable in almost every imaginable situation.

Pre-rolling sounds to me like nothing more than a way of players trying to short-cut the system.

Of course it’s a feeling. And how a game feels is important. Personally, the feeling I want to cultivate in my games is one of narrative-first. Where describing what your character does narratively is the player’s primary means of interfacing with the world. I want the mechanics to fade into the background as much as possible.

Preach it!

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

Good point. Yet another reason: the player sometimes shouldn't know if their character succeeded and the die roll would give that away.

More importantly, often on a failure they shouldn't know why the failure occurred. My usual example for this is searching for a secret door: did you fail because the roll was a '2' or did you fail because you're looking in the wrong place.

 

[Charlaquin]

The player narrates the action, the DM decides the relevant skill and the difficulty.

I go as far as saying if the skill is knowledge or stealth related, the DM can also make the roll behind a screen - I subscribe to the 1E default that a character attempting to be stealthy will always believe they are successful, and similarly that a PC attempting a perception or investigation check will believe they have all the relevant information. There's no need for the player to be aware of the roll, and therefore have any idea as to whether or not their action was a success.

This is a slightly different, but related matter, and for me, it comes back to “consequences for failure” being one of the three things an action needs in order to qualify for a roll. If every check has consequences for failure, you’ll know whether you succeeded or failed whether or not you see the result on the dice, because if you failed, you’ll experience the consequences. Now, I do see an argument for making stealth rolls secretly - in that case, the consequences are that whatever you’re trying to hide from notices you, and you might not necessarily know that they notice you. Personally, I model that by allowing the players to see the results of their roll, but not the DC. You know how quietly or loudly you’re moving, but you don’t know how good that orc’s hearing is. Making those rolls behind the DM screen is a valid way to handle it though.

As for knowledge skills, I usually handle those as passive checks. I don’t really like “roll to see how much you know about this thing” checks, so I include in my notes if there’s additional information that PCs might or might not know depending on their Intelligence and Skills, give that information a DC, and compare that to the PCs’ passive Intelligence (+relevant skill) scores. If someone in the group meets or exceeds the DC, I include that optional information right in my description, being sure to point out that this is extra information they might have missed if they hadn’t had the relevant skill. For example, “Ragnar, thanks to your knowledge of History, you also know that this place was the sight of the great dwarven massacre of ‘95.” (or whatever).

When I will have players actively roll Knowledge checks is when they are analyzing or identifying something. That’s an action, with a goal and an approach.

 

[epithet]

Sometimes people are more inclined to roll play than to role play. I've seen it many times--a player starts off just wanting to roll some dice and succeed or fail, then something will capture the imagination and we're suddenly neck-deep in narrative. As the DM, your job includes reading the players and delivering a satisfying experience for them.

I see a lot of assertions on this forum along the lines of "I allow this" or "I ban that" at "my table." There's only one reason I DM, and that's to entertain my friends. It's work, but it is rewarding. Maybe some folks go on a power trip, or DM to scratch their control itch, I dunno, but if one of my players wants to roll some dice, I'm gonna make sure that happens, even as I paint a detailed word picture for the others. It's my world, with my NPCs, but it's our game.