D&D 5E Players Self-Assigning Rolls

[5ekyu]

Reasonable specificity is required by the rules to have a chance at finding a hidden object. The rules also say that if a player chooses to have the character spend 10x the amount of time on a task than usual, the DM can just rule automatic success on the task (if it makes sense).

So a player at my table might say "I take as much time as is needed so nothing is overlooked..." or "We can't afford to attract a wandering monster right now - I make it a cursory search..." The former is automatic success at the cost of the DM making a wandering monster check. The latter may be an ability check, if what the player described has an uncertain outcome.

Those both appear to answer how thorough, not how long, right?



Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app

 

[Charlaquin]

yea, that is my whole thing too. now search is a personal pet peive since my now roommate and I got into this whole thing back in 3.5:

we knew the room had a boat load (literally taken from a boat) of treasure, and we knew it was hidden. I 'searched' the closet with my rogue with a huge modifier...I got like a forty something...he asked how I said "I look for hidden features, and go through pockets and everything my well trained thief could think of... I got nothing. After over an hour out of game of doing this, each person having to describe there search, and it not mattering if they got a 5 or a forty the player of the cleric 'thought' to pull the bar off the closet that the cloths were in...it was lead (so our Detect magic didn't penetrate) but was hollow and had a portable hole rolled up in it...

I literally turned red as I tried to stay calm and say "I searched there first...we wasted half the night on this?" and his answer was "But you never said you checked the bar in the closet"... to this day I think the in the 40's search check should come with something

Bad DMs DM badly. It doesn’t mean the approach said DM used poorly is inherently a bad approach. That sounds like a horribly frustrating experience brought on by poor application of the “The DM always calls for the rolls” style. Earlier in the thread I shared a similarly frustrating experience I had with a DM who applied the “The players (can) initiate their own rolls” just as poorly. But I hold that against the DM, not his preferred system of action resolution. With a good DM, either style can be done well, and with a bad DM, either style can be done poorly.

 

[iserith]

Those both appear to answer how thorough, not how long, right?

Those go reasonably hand in hand in my view and line up with the rules. The player will know the stakes in play at my table as well.

As for your previous question of "Isn't how long a task takes often a factor of skill and luck as opposed to a default decision made before a task begins?" I would say that's not the default stakes as suggested by the rules in my view. Though it's reasonable to present these stakes in D&D 5e in some cases, this sort of thinking is more in line with other games as I see it.

 

[iserith]

Bad DMs DM badly. It doesn’t mean the approach said DM used poorly is inherently a bad approach. That sounds like a horribly frustrating experience brought on by poor application of the “The DM always calls for the rolls” style. Earlier in the thread I shared a similarly frustrating experience I had with a DM who applied the “The players (can) initiate their own rolls” just as poorly. But I hold that against the DM, not his preferred system of action resolution. With a good DM, either style can be done well, and with a bad DM, either style can be done poorly.

Based on what the poster is saying, it doesn't even look like it's "The DM always call for the rolls" style anyway. The player searched, apparently made a check, and THEN the DM asked the player to describe the search. Imagine if the DM asked for the description first, then asked for a check afterward, if what the poster said had an uncertain outcome. I think it would be very hard for the DM to justify a 40-something result not working. He or she would have had to have ruled auto-failure for that to make any sense and even then that's a stretch.

And again, I don't recall exactly what the expectation was in the D&D 3.5e rules for making unprompted skill checks or ruling automatic success or failure. So maybe that's the right process producing a bad play experience.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

DM describes a scene, players say what they want to do and how they want to do it, and DM determines success or failure or if a roll is needed because something interesting can happen because of the roll. As much as I reiterate this flow, I still get experienced players who throw down some dice without being asked and announce "Survival 24 for doing blah blah" or whatever. Did I miss something between AD&D (which I played as a kid) and 5E (my return to D&D two years ago) that made this alright?

The Run a Game Blog has a nice piece on this:
www.runagame.net/2017/10/players-self-assigning-rolls.html

I guess I'm looking for ways that other DMs deal with situations where players roll the dice for skills without being asked to do so. What say you?

OK, this is to answer for "ways that other DMs deal with situations where players roll the dice for skills without being asked to do so."

The short answer is that I tell them not to do it. In my house rules, and at session 0, and reminders if they do it during the game. If they still do it, I ignore it. Or if it's something like "I make a Persuasion check to see if I can bribe the guard" I tell them that "guard looks at the die you rolled on the ground and looks unimpressed." It also might work against them, because if their roll fails, they may have consequences they otherwise wouldn't have had if I had decided that based on their actions they simply succeeded.

But really the answer is why it's not a problem at our table, and it has to do with how I adjudicate skill use in general.

I'll tell you that there's a lot in that blog post and the other posts it links to that I disagree with. First and foremost, the blog's approach is very much focused on the game and fixing the "problem" with guidelines and more rules. Rules about what makes a game "fun" and things like that. His long treatise on the history of traps is heavily predicated on the rule that a thief could only disarm "small traps." While that might very well have been the rule, I don't think that's how people perceived or played the rule.

I'm not concerned about designing encounters that are "fun" or that traps are "boring or stupid unless there's some way to avoid them" and other statements like these. Why? Because those all imply that the fun of the game is engaging the rules, and in particular, rolling dice. That is, setting up circumstances where the players need to roll their dice, and that the action of rolling dice to determine success/failure is what makes the game "fun." That very premise is exactly what encourages players to want to self-assign die rolls. (An interesting thing is that the "fun formula" doesn't mention anything about rolling dice...).

Because it's a game, we operate under the assumption sometimes that rules must govern the actions of the game. Over the years many people (including myself) have searched for a better "system" for skill checks. The basic line of thinking is typically something like: Combat is fun and exciting. It's fun and exciting because you roll dice, and that creates suspense. In addition, it's not a "one-and-done" thing, it takes multiple attempts, each with a chance for success or failure, and you have to ultimately succeed in defeating the enemy before they defeat you.

So usually it's an attempt to make skill checks as exciting as combat, and it's almost always focused on making die rolls. Because "automatic success is boring" right?

The second aspect is the way skill checks have changed over the years. When non-weapon proficiencies were first introduced, the assumption was that you would rarely need to make a skill check. You were proficient in that skill, and could therefore just do it. Other characters were not, and therefore could not. For example, swimming or reading. If you knew how to swim, you could. If you didn't know how to read, you couldn't. You didn't have to make a check to see if you could read Moby Dick vs The Little Engine that Could. And you didn't need to make a swimming check unless you fell off of a ship in full armor, or in a storm.

When you consider skills from this perspective, they become a story element. Oh, we need to get into this building without detection, who knows how to pick a lock?

As time went on, the rules focused on the times when you'd need to make a skill check. That makes sense, because if a check is needed (there's a chance of failure), you needed to know how to determine success. For completeness, perhaps, we even assigned DCs to very easy, easy, average tests of a skill. The example for average (10) in the d20 SRD is "hear an approaching guard." So without any modifiers we've suddenly defined hearing an approaching guard as something with only a 50% chance of success. Is that a guard in mail with weapons and hard boots walking down a stone-floored castle hall from 20 feet away around a corner? Or a guard in leather on grass from 100 feet away?

It's simple. The perception is that if there's a rule, then we use it, and we use it for every circumstance. Sure, the rule says "if there's a chance for failure" but in 3/3.5e there's almost always a chance for failure unless you take 10 or take 20.

I look back to the 2e approach. If you're trained in something, then you're trained. How trained? Well, the passive score answers that question. If you have a passive score of 15, then anything "medium" or lower is automatic success for you barring mitigating circumstances. I take this a step further, incorporating the old take 20 rules. If there is no consequence for failure, and time is not a factor, then you'll automatically succeed at most tasks that you are capable of performing. That is, if the DC is less than or equal to 20 + your modifier, we know you can do it. So unless there's something that would prevent you from doing it, you do. As the DM I'll probably let you know it took a few minutes, but you'll still accomplish it without a die roll.

This is further modified by your actions. If there's a door concealed behind a pile of boxes, and you stand 20 feet away and look around the room, then chances are you won't find it no matter what. However, if your Investigation skill or perhaps Perception, is high enough, I might tell you that you notice that the placement of the rooms leaves some space unaccounted for between them. On the other hand, if you go over and just start moving boxes, the door is readily visible at that point, and no check is needed. If, however, the door is not just concealed by the boxes, but cleverly hidden, the act of moving the boxes would prompt me to ask for a Perception and/or Investigation check to see if you actually spot the secret door. If you tell me you're going to feel around the seams of the molding and corners, then I might still require an Investigation check, but with advantage because of the actions you're taking.

Another example. Picking a lock. You're in a hallway, trying to get into a locked room. There are guards on patrol, so you need to be quiet, kicking it in isn't really an option. You know that there's a guard nearby, and the lock is a DC 12, and you have a +5 to pick it. I know you'll succeed. However, what isn't clear is how long it takes you to do so. So you have a lookout in place to warn you when the guard is coming, and you start to pick the lock (roll a check, and get a modified 8). That's the only roll you're going to make. You don't know the DC, but since you failed by 4, it's going to take 4 rounds to pick. In the meantime, your lookout is keeping you informed of the guard heading this way, and the other characters are whispering at you to hurry up.

One of the mistakes that has been made in the past is the assumption that anything between the "action" is boring. No need to provide full maps to an area, just the places where you'll have a combat, because you'll breeze past the other parts. Each scene is a set-piece. "OK, you've killed 5 orcs, now it's the rogue's turn to shine...you found a complex trap!"

He doesn't like "gotcha" traps. Not just because of the Perception checks that it now requires, but also because they aren't fun. They're just a "hit point tax" (isn't that what most combats are?).

I disagree. First and foremost, traps are placed where they make sense. A creature doesn't place a trap because it's interesting or fun, and despite the "creatures aren't perfect" attempt to reason why every trap must be detectable, it's a cop out. Here's why:

First, in theory, every trap is detectable. But maybe not by you. The 5e Tomb of Horrors sets the DC to notice the pit traps at 12. I think that's ridiculously low. This is, after all, a tomb that has never successfully been plundered in hundreds if not thousands of years. So much so that it's legendary. You know what legendary means when there's a location that's known to be loaded with monetary and magical treasure right? (Hint - White Plume Mountain has a turnstile.

The bottom line is, the traps should be deadly, and they should be hard to detect. They aren't a hit point tax, they are a reward for investing your time, training, and resources into learning a particular skill. Just like in so many movies where there's a ridiculously difficult security system to bypass. It's possible, but you need to have the right people, with the right skills.

But the traps also need to make sense. For example, a goblin lair isn't going to have a DC 30 complex trap that will take 3 experts 2 hours to work painstakingly work through. No, they'll have a pit trap with wooden spikes and poison if they can get it. If the trap is a deterrent, it will also be visible. More importantly, if it's protecting their territory against the nearby troglodyte tribe, then it will be designed to thwart them, not a 7th level human rogue that they never considered as a possibility.

So what about the gotcha traps in the hall like the pits in ToH? Well, to start with, your passive Perception may very well be high enough to notice them. Or at least that something isn't right and they'll take a closer look. Moving at a slower speed and taking more time to search will probably give them advantage on their passive Perception, and if they are using tools like a wooden pole to poke and prod ahead, then they'll just outright find it when they push on it with enough force. This isn't boring, it sets the stage. It tells them something about the environment they are in, and that the creature took precautions against intruders. If you fail to discover it, it might be dangerous, perhaps even deadly.

"But that means that players will always be prodding at things and take forever to get down the hall." Well, yes. If they are someplace like ToH, then yes. What's wrong with that? If you're not rolling the dice for every 5 or 10 feet then it just means that you describe the results of their actions a little differently, and it takes them longer to get down the hall. I think we usually underestimate the passage of time in our games anyway.

The other main issue I have with how he recommends you use skill checks is that it overemphasizes the skill check. From what I consider a world-building approach, I like things to be consistent and make sense. This also applies to application of the rules. There's a lot of advice out there like his post that says something to the effect of "don't require a skill check unless there's a potential consequence or it's important to the story." This gets extended further with advice such as to not place a locked door when there isn't something worthwhile inside.

Well, since the players write the story through their character's actions, I can't really tell you what's important or not. If you're exploring a secret laboratory, then different people have different access to different rooms. Most rooms are locked, even if there isn't anything of interest to you. Again, like traps, a locked door should make sense. Not in the context of "is it fun?" but in the context of the setting and scenario. But wait, didn't I say I only have them make a skill check when there's a potential consequence? No, and that's one of the major differences in my opinion. They are always making skill checks. That is, as a DM I am always measuring the DC against their skill level. The only question is whether the circumstances call for actually rolling a die. That's the judgement call, and can only be made by the DM. We don't call for a balance check ever time somebody walks across the room. But walking across a narrow ledge above a 1,500 foot drop? Sure. If there's a significant chance of failure. It might even be a circumstance where it warrants a skill check or two to use the die rolls to specifically build suspense. Based on their skills you know they'll succeed, so any failure won't result in actually falling to their death, perhaps, but it could have other consequences, or at the very least remind them of their mortality. The point is, even if you're going to utilize a skill check for dramatic purposes, it's a decision the DM makes, not the players.

The bottom line for me is that skill use isn't generally about rolling dice, and I don't think it should be. I think that most of the time, if you're skilled at doing something, then you're just able to do it. It's a tool to help determine success only when success isn't assured, and is needed rarely for somebody who is skilled at something. If you're not proficient, that's a different story. You probably won't succeed without a check, and I'll let you know when you need to make one.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I know in D&D 4e, players are encouraged to ask if a skill check applies to an action they established and the DM is encouraged to say "Yes." It's right in the rules. So if we were talking about D&D 4e, I would not hold the same position as I do in this thread regarding D&D 5e. In fact, I ran some D&D 4e for a group a few months back - 5e players who never played 4e - and I told them straight up to feel free to ask to make skill checks because that's the expectation of that game, but to also make sure their goal and approach was clear.

Lots of folks, however, bring ways of doing things from one game into another game. I do not. I treat each game as a separate thing.

I didn't play a lot of 4e, so that's interesting. Although it does extend my point that the progress of game design encouraged the players to take more control over the rules, and that 5e is scaling that back a bit. And I have rarely (including myself) who has not brought ways of doing things from other editions or games they've played, consciously or unconsciously. I'm honestly impressed that you can do that. Particularly in a game as complex and open-to-interpretation as D&D.

 

[iserith]

I didn't play a lot of 4e, so that's interesting. Although it does extend my point that the progress of game design encouraged the players to take more control over the rules, and that 5e is scaling that back a bit.

I agree.

And I have rarely (including myself) who has not brought ways of doing things from other editions or games they've played, consciously or unconsciously. I'm honestly impressed that you can do that. Particularly in a game as complex and open-to-interpretation as D&D.

I mean, there are some things that are the same between the various editions, right? But there are also some pretty significant differences, players asking or making unprompted rolls being a big one as that goes straight to the resulting play experience in my view. Back when I was playing a lot of D&D 4e, I had just come off the heels of 8 years of D&D 3.Xe. What I noticed was sometimes I was running D&D 4e and it just wasn't working as well as I hoped. Then I played in other people's 4e games who had also played a lot of 3.Xe and noticed that we were all dragging our practices from D&D 3.Xe into D&D 4e. I resolved to question every aspect of how I was running things to make sure it was either appropriate for D&D 4e or legacy thinking that made its way into my current game from a previous one. And it worked. My D&D 4e game remarkably improved and I still think it's a great game. Since then, I follow the same process for new games.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

This is a odd note of history and more an aside than anything else but...

While i do not recall the text within the 2e core rulebooks verbatim for their initial release, i do very explicitly clearly remember the add campaign and posters that came out with the 2e first release...

"Real GMs go by the book."

That was full bold mega-print on many of the posters and other promotional materials for their core rule books initial 2e release. I recall it right there at the bookstore when i bought my first 2e books. I also remember thinking they misspelled "buy".

The reason for it was that leading up to that 1e had become so diverse, so scrambled and so riddled through with house rules for most every game that you found it rather difficult to go from one game to another without a tome of house rules to go thru. (Obviously that is slight hyperbole.)

A specific strategic objective for 2e was to reset to a standard that *was* used to bring together the gameplay across the sprectrum.

Now, of course, it was more a marketing and design approach than a truly achievable objective so its less like rule of law than a nod to trying to herd their cats, but it was there, it was very prominent and it was also (in my experience) very welcome by many.

Oh, there was an article by Gary Gygax that famously said something to the effect that "if you weren't playing AD&D by the rules, then you weren't playing AD&D, you were playing something else." Of course, Gary never played AD&D himself, he had his own variations on OD&D.

To me it's really a question of what the focus is. We've been through stages where we were all about the rules. And we'd often spend as much time arguing about the rules, pulling out books, etc. Now I'd prefer to discuss rules and such here and outside of the game, and one of the goals for me is for the rules to intrude on the game as little as possible. OD&D and AD&D were a weird mix, where most of the time the rules didn't intrude, but there were enough standalone mechanics that some did.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I agree.

I mean, there are some things that are the same between the various editions, right? But there are also some pretty significant differences, players asking or making unprompted rolls being a big one as that goes straight to the resulting play experience in my view. Back when I was playing a lot of D&D 4e, I had just come off the heels of 8 years of D&D 3.Xe. What I noticed was sometimes I was running D&D 4e and it just wasn't working as well as I hoped. Then I played in other people's 4e games who had also played a lot of 3.Xe and noticed that we were all dragging our practices from D&D 3.Xe into D&D 4e. I resolved to question every aspect of how I was running things to make sure it was either appropriate for D&D 4e or legacy thinking that made its way into my current game from a previous one. And it worked. My D&D 4e game remarkably improved and I still think it's a great game. Since then, I follow the same process for new games.

I bring a lot from earlier editions (and other games for that matter) into our rules. But that's both intentional and unintentional.

In terms of 4e specifically, I think it was an incredibly well designed game, and as I've dug into it (and learned from avid fans), I've found a lot to like. And I've also found that a lot of it wasn't as different as I thought. But I've been running the same campaign since '87, and attempting to carry that forward into 4e was impossible. Well, probably not impossible, but not enjoyable for us. We were trying to make it play like an AD&D/3.5e mashup. It didn't work. And that's because we were trying to make it do something it wasn't designed to do.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Those both appear to answer how thorough, not how long, right?



Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app

Honestly, for me, this kind of questioning is doing exactly what I don't do: focus on nitpicky things. Effort and time are pretty closely related. Neither my players nor I are playing a semantics word game where gothcas lurk at every wrong phrase. If I ask how long the player's going to take [-]searching [/-] vlarging and they respond they're going to do a cursory [-]search[/-] vlarg, that's good enough. I don't need a time in seconds, I need to understand if you're rifling through or doing a careful [-]search[/-] vlarg or taking the desk apart.

To sum up, this isn't an issue because I'm not trying to be a dick.