D&D 5E Players Self-Assigning Rolls

[JonnyP71]

One thing I don't think I've seen mentioned is that, yes, a player rolling the dice and declaring a result without the DM asking for a roll is disrespectful to the DM. I think, however, that it's more disrespectful to the other players at the table. It demands resolution of that player's actions before that of other players. It's especially bad if what the forcing player is doing would actually resolve after what another player would do, assuming he ever got the chance to declare an action.

Having recently played with such a player I wholeheartedly agree with this. He was frequently so adamant that because he said it first and had rolled dice then he got to do it 1st, and the expression on his face when doing so was one of defiance and aggression - akin to 'This is what I am doing, I'm doing it NOW and don't any of you stop me.' He hated it when the DM stopped him and told him to let others have their say.

There is a very good reason the intention of 5E seems to be one of - describe an action, DM decides difficulty and suitable skill - and this is the 'help' rule. It gives other players a chance to say - 'I help you', and therefore grant advantage if applicable.

Another aspect to consider, if that if a group get into the habit of properly describing their actions it gives them *more* control over what their characters do. If they are vague then the DM might well make assumptions they do not like. *SPOILER* . Take as an example a famous trap in a famous dungeon that states that something nasty happens if an altar is touched by living matter.

Clearly - 'I gently check the altar with the tip of my dagger, looking for cracks, and maybe a secret compartment' is a perfectly safe thing to do. As is 'I poke the altar from a distance with my 10' Pole'.

But 'I run my fingers around the edge of the altar looking for secret compartments' is not, nor 'I try to push the altar', or 'I stand on the altar'.

As DM, I don't want to have to ask 'How do you examine the altar', as no matter how many times I say that, the players always get nervous. I want the players to be precise in their descriptions from the get-go.

Plus, if they are imprecise, I would assume 'I check the altar for traps', or 'I check the altar for secret compartments' means they are using their fingers to do the checking. Especially if they roll as they are saying it, thus giving me no chance to ask for more detail...

Asking for better descriptions *gives* more player control over their actions. More 'agency' if I'm forced to use that irritating buzzword.

 

[robus]

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.

Right, you want to be fast and lucky? Give the area a quick once over and I’ll ask for a roll. DC set by how craftily the thing is hidden. If you fail you can choose to continue searching at the expense of time.

 

[5ekyu]

Right, you want to be fast and lucky? Give the area a quick once over and I’ll ask for a roll. DC set by how craftily the thing is hidden. If you fail you can choose to continue searching at the expense of time.

Exactly which is why i would not tend to ask someone how long it takes their character to do something or how long their character is doing something but rather might ask *when it matters* something like "quick search or take your time" though for our games we tend to use "spot check" and "full search" for the two extremes.

But to be fair, when "tasks over time" is important and "for dramatic risk" (like say for "patrols" vs "time") i almost always resolve it now as three-way-dance types sequences with each failure along the way being a chance of "patrol" or whatever the drama element is. The less skilled (or less lucky) can still get it done, perhaps, but likely may get a few more surprises along the way as they take longer.

That way a skilled character (or very lucky one) can still get the job done over a few successes without a given "patrol roll." The "get the job done for sure" = "patrol roll" certainty does not seem to sit as well with some as others. Seems to devalue the skill for some.

 

[iserith]

Exactly which is why i would not tend to ask someone how long it takes their character to do something or how long their character is doing something but rather might ask *when it matters* something like "quick search or take your time" though for our games we tend to use "spot check" and "full search" for the two extremes.

It always matters in my game how long you spend on a task and in what context. That will determine how much time you have left to complete time-sensitive objectives, whether or not you may have to contend with a wandering monster, how the adventure location might change, or whether I resolve your task with a passive check or an ability check, if the outcome is uncertain.

But to be fair, when "tasks over time" is important and "for dramatic risk" (like say for "patrols" vs "time") i almost always resolve it now as three-way-dance types sequences with each failure along the way being a chance of "patrol" or whatever the drama element is. The less skilled (or less lucky) can still get it done, perhaps, but likely may get a few more surprises along the way as they take longer.

That way a skilled character (or very lucky one) can still get the job done over a few successes without a given "patrol roll." The "get the job done for sure" = "patrol roll" certainty does not seem to sit as well with some as others. Seems to devalue the skill for some.

I haven't heard any objections so far along those lines. It's a trade-off that players in my experience can readily understand and plan for. How do you imagine it "devalues the skill?"

 

[5ekyu]

It always matters in my game how long you spend on a task and in what context. That will determine how much time you have left to complete time-sensitive objectives, whether or not you may have to contend with a wandering monster, how the adventure location might change, or whether I resolve your task with a passive check or an ability check, if the outcome is uncertain.



I haven't heard any objections so far along those lines. It's a trade-off that players in my experience can readily understand and plan for. How do you imagine it "devalues the skill?"

How devalue? Well if the jump to auto success is always 10x then unless there is some reason not to let anyone search not necessarily the good searcher... Who and what their aptitudes are really doesnt matter unless very high dc are an issue.

Compare to the three way where skill matters a lot more - fewrf failures, quicker done and fewer negative hits.

Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app

 

[iserith]

How devalue? Well if the jump to auto success is always 10x then unless there is some reason not to let anyone search not necessarily the good searcher... Who and what their aptitudes are really doesnt matter unless very high dc are an issue.

I don't see why this matters. When there's an ability check or passive check, the character who invested in the Perception proficiency or whatever will tend to do better than the character who did not. If you can avoid rolling altogether and get automatic success, that's good for everyone regardless of who actually does the searching. But it's not likely they can always freely do that. They may only have till midnight to save the prince or princess. Or they may be low on resources and can little afford another wandering monster. Or whatever other circumstance there is in-game that would cause them to opt for the cursory search over the exhaustive one.

Ultimately, the choice is up to the players. If a player thinks he or she is not getting enough mileage out of an investment in a particular area, all he or she need do - as I mentioned way upthread - is to just undertake more tasks with an uncertain outcome that align with that particular area.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

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.

you two are absolutely correct this was a "bad DM" story not a "Roll first or second story" I included it in why I am more concerned with search checks...

Exactly which is why i would not tend to ask someone how long it takes their character to do something or how long their character is doing something but rather might ask *when it matters* something like "quick search or take your time" though for our games we tend to use "spot check" and "full search" for the two extremes.

But to be fair, when "tasks over time" is important and "for dramatic risk" (like say for "patrols" vs "time") i almost always resolve it now as three-way-dance types sequences with each failure along the way being a chance of "patrol" or whatever the drama element is. The less skilled (or less lucky) can still get it done, perhaps, but likely may get a few more surprises along the way as they take longer.

That way a skilled character (or very lucky one) can still get the job done over a few successes without a given "patrol roll." The "get the job done for sure" = "patrol roll" certainty does not seem to sit as well with some as others. Seems to devalue the skill for some.

It always matters in my game how long you spend on a task and in what context. That will determine how much time you have left to complete time-sensitive objectives, whether or not you may have to contend with a wandering monster, how the adventure location might change, or whether I resolve your task with a passive check or an ability check, if the outcome is uncertain.



I haven't heard any objections so far along those lines. It's a trade-off that players in my experience can readily understand and plan for. How do you imagine it "devalues the skill?"

It ddoesn't always matter in my games... just like travel time...

we had a guy DM that didn't understand our (out of game) time issues, and would spend entire sessions where nothing happened. here was the game that almost ended his campaign {he like I didn't mind called skills so please don't take it as that being the problem}

it will take 17 days to get from A (town we were in) to B (adventure sight/dungeon) we have 2 rangers (one multi with warlock other straight class) both with the background feature they can feed X ( I think it's five) people...and me (Druid/CLeric) who every day spent any non used spell slots on good berry so we always had a bunch, and a fighter/wizard and a rogue/wizard.
we went day by day, having to call out our uses of skills, spells, and background feature. No encounters happened, then we would have to describe how we set camp, and who was on watch (even though it never changed we set an alarm, had someone on watch and ritualized tiny hut...
there where no encounters for the first 5 days, each took about a twenty minute "Explain in detail" then we came across a farm at noonish on day 6, talked to the farmer (only real RP we had, but we did joke about forgetting to ask if he had daughters for the rest of the night) kept moving and had to again "Explain in detail" every night... at witch point we asked if we could just write down what we were doing each night... but no he said if we forget to call something it might matter... so on day umpteen (exact point not really clicking) we gave up and said "You know what, we eat good berrys and sleep under a tree what happens" and it was nothing again... at witch point the game night ended with "Then why bother with every night?"

I would totally have run that entire couple of hours in a couple of minutes... I see 0 reason you can't short hand "Normal activities."

now I say all that because your whole "it always matters" sometimes there is no wandering monsters to check for, and if there isn't the difference between a 3 minute search and a 30 minute one is 0

 

[iserith]

now I say all that because your whole "it always matters" sometimes there is no wandering monsters to check for, and if there isn't the difference between a 3 minute search and a 30 minute one is 0

You're either pursuing timed objectives or there are wandering monsters in my games, sometimes both. In addition to that, I might tie time to escalation. In a one-shot I ran on Saturday, for example, the scenario begins with the PCs leaving town to go to an adventure location where the regional forces of evil are gathering for a party. The first exploration challenge was about figuring out how fast they wanted to get there which would determine how many extra villains would be present when they showed up. Their chosen pace modified the DC of tasks with uncertain outcomes they might perform along the way. Three out of five PCs would need to succeed in order to avoid a level of exhaustion. As it happened, they figured out how to leverage their resources and use teamwork to go at a fast pace and still succeed. So when they got there, they weren't exhausted and only one additional villain was present instead of two or three. In addition to this challenge, at the actual lair, there were wandering monster checks every 10 minutes, plus another villain would show up every hour.

Time pressure, whatever form it takes, deals with a lot of issues like the infamous 5-minute work day plus it also creates trade-offs between auto-success and uncertainty in some tasks in addition to ramping up the tension.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

you two are absolutely correct this was a "bad DM" story not a "Roll first or second story" I included it in why I am more concerned with search checks...





It ddoesn't always matter in my games... just like travel time...

we had a guy DM that didn't understand our (out of game) time issues, and would spend entire sessions where nothing happened. here was the game that almost ended his campaign {he like I didn't mind called skills so please don't take it as that being the problem}

it will take 17 days to get from A (town we were in) to B (adventure sight/dungeon) we have 2 rangers (one multi with warlock other straight class) both with the background feature they can feed X ( I think it's five) people...and me (Druid/CLeric) who every day spent any non used spell slots on good berry so we always had a bunch, and a fighter/wizard and a rogue/wizard.
we went day by day, having to call out our uses of skills, spells, and background feature. No encounters happened, then we would have to describe how we set camp, and who was on watch (even though it never changed we set an alarm, had someone on watch and ritualized tiny hut...
there where no encounters for the first 5 days, each took about a twenty minute "Explain in detail" then we came across a farm at noonish on day 6, talked to the farmer (only real RP we had, but we did joke about forgetting to ask if he had daughters for the rest of the night) kept moving and had to again "Explain in detail" every night... at witch point we asked if we could just write down what we were doing each night... but no he said if we forget to call something it might matter... so on day umpteen (exact point not really clicking) we gave up and said "You know what, we eat good berrys and sleep under a tree what happens" and it was nothing again... at witch point the game night ended with "Then why bother with every night?"

I would totally have run that entire couple of hours in a couple of minutes... I see 0 reason you can't short hand "Normal activities."

now I say all that because your whole "it always matters" sometimes there is no wandering monsters to check for, and if there isn't the difference between a 3 minute search and a 30 minute one is 0

I think what he's saying is that the amount of time the character takes always matters.

The amount of time taken by the players does not. You can very easily skip forward in real time and still take into account the amount of time taken by the character when adjudicating success.

 

[Lanefan]

This [from post 236, a while back I realize] just has to be called out.

Some indie games exploit this principle to the strongest level - the SEARCH ROLL is not a test of character success or fail as much as it is a test of WAS THERE SOMETHING THERE TO FIND. its a recognition that its "our world" not "my world" and that just like a fighter with an 18 strength and a greataxe leaves his mark on a combat scene without me having to "setup things for him" the character with similarly exceptional search skills should be equally as "influential."[/B]

By this logic, if the search roll is a test of whether there's something there to find then the str-18 fighter swinging her greataxe is a test of whether there's something there to hit. In other words: by this logic she can make opponents appear out of thin air simply by swinging her axe for the hell of it, just like a searcher can make a secret door appear on the map where one wasn't before just by searching a wall for the hell of it.

Seriously?

I bring this up not just for the sheer folly of the logic, but because you've been consistently saying in here that rolling for combat actions and rolling for non-combat actions work the same at the table. They don't.

In combat play there's not usually any need to say how you're swinging your axe unless you're doing something other than the usual assumption: swinging it at your foe as hard as you can with deadly intent. In non-combat play the 'how' of your action is every bit as important as the 'what' as there are (almost always) many more variables, and many more ways in which things might go wrong - or right.

If there's contact poison on the desk you're searching I need detail on how you're searching it, without having to ask as the very fact of my asking will unduly reveal there's more to this desk than meets the eye. I-as-DM can't assume you're touching it, nor can I assume you are not. "I search the desk, my roll adds to 18" tells me nothing.

Lanefan