Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Players Self-Assigning Rolls
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7294666" data-attributes="member: 16814"><p>Well, yes, because the player caused the thing to be authored. Whether or not the player directly does the authoring or makes the DM respond by authoring what the player wants doesn't matter. If the player declares 'I'm looking for a secret door, Perception 16!' and then the DM adds a secret door because of that roll, then the player is authoring a bit of the fiction, whoever narrates.</p><p></p><p>This is a very narrow point that you're trying to make, and not a successful one.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Did you think this was going to encourage me to listen to you again, or... what, exactly? You seem to think I'm attacking you, and accusing you of badwrong. Nothing could be further from the truth. We're discussion how to play pretend elves, not if we're bad people because of how we play pretend elves. I'm arguing from my position, you from yours. Neither is the best way to play, but both are the right way to play for us, respectively.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Literally, your example was dropping dice and naming a line on the character sheet. You then went back after and said that you'd then have to ask clarifying questions about the dropping of the dice and naming a line on the character sheet. When the exactly thing I said was happening was the crux of your example, which you then had to say that you'd have to go back and ask the players to do more than just drop the dice and name a line on their character sheet, I kinda feel like my point was made.</p><p></p><p>Kudos for asking for more information, though. However, my point stands that your players are doing exactly what I said I was trying to avoid. That you then address it after the fact doesn't change what actually happened there.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Well, I wasn't talking about your first post, was I?</p><p></p><p></p><p>And that's great, if it works for you. It no longer works for me, for the many, many reasons I've outlined.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Again, glad this works for you. It doesn't for me, because, well 1) hyperbole aside, the exact situation being discussed in game isn't the same as the last ones. If the players are searching every 10' of every wall in a dungeon where all the walls are the same, sure, we can skip to the end, but that's not the game I run. If my players do that, there's a lot of 'okay, you spend 10 minutes on that wall and find nothing. Let me check for wandering monsters." In point of fact, in my game, if there's something to find on that wall, I'll telegraph it. I'll use a player's passive score for a skill to provide a clue that something is different at this stretch of wall, and they'll either be interested and start declaring actions or they won't be. There will never be a large body of previously established 'drop dice and name a skill' to begin with. </p><p></p><p>Also, I've grown to hate tons of useless rolls.</p><p></p><p>2)But no how. How is important to me. How lets me drive the fiction to match what the player is really trying to do so I can engage what my players find interesting.</p><p></p><p>3) yup, the player tells you a number, and now you have to interpret or ignore that number.</p><p></p><p></p><p>That's not an approach, though. Searching is an action, yes, but how you search is the approach. Are you touching the altar while you search it? BAM! Are you not touching the altar? No BAM. Approach is critical, and I do not want to interpret a player's declaration of a skill to include such things as the scene hinges upon. I don't want to argue 'but my character wouldn't have done it that way!' anymore. If you don't have that problem, awesome, man, glad it works for you. I had that problem. I don't anymore, because I changed how I play to require clearly stated approaches. Can you do that along with player declared rolls? You betcha. I've found it doesn't work out that well for me and my group because it's too easy to fall back into the habits I want to change.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Climbing the tree is a goal, though. I climb the tree explicitly states the goal. This isn't a good example of not clearly stating a goal. Why you want that goal is generally irrelevant, although if your eventual plan is to jump off the top of the tree, do three flips, and stick the landing on the back of that wild horse galloping by, I'd really hope you ran that whole plan past me first so that I can, 1) skip the check to climb the tree (it's easily climbed, and this isn't the interesting part of your action) and 2) let you know that's going to be really, really hard to do before you try. If you insist, well, a DC 25 DEX check sounds about right. You can use Acrobatics with that, or if you think something else will help make a case.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm not going to ask for a check for most of those, though. If you go looking through that pile of bones, and something was in it, you found it, no check needed. If you look for a secret door in the wall by X approach, make a check -- one decided by your choice of approach -- and we'll see if you found something. If the approach is to examine the wall for a hidden door, relying on your expertise as a stonemason (proficient in masonry tools) and your racial understanding of stonework (mountain dwarf) to see if the setting of the bricks is off, well, that's an intelligence check, modified by perception (you're looking) or masonry tools (experience), with advantage due being a dwarf. By clearly stating an approach, the player can drive the check towards their strengths. If they just make a WIS (perception) check, it won't be as favorable to them.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Sure, it is. If a player declares "I search! I got a perception 19!" you're going to have to ask what they're searching for. Especially if there's a hidden pixie in the corner behind that burlap sack AND a secret door in the west wall AND a trap on the door in the north wall. If you don't know the goal, how can you adjudicate the action at all?</p><p></p><p>What you mean is that you don't ask for an overt statement of a goal if you can reasonably deduce or assume the goal. And that's fine, most all of use have done that and still do. I've found, though, that I'm not my players, and they're thinking and assumptions aren't mine, so by requiring a clearly stated goal -- what they want to accomplish -- I can head off miscommunications or bad assumptions and the game doesn't have to backtrack that often. To return to the above example, finding the pixie is DC 14, finding the secret door is DC 17, and finding the trap is DC 25 (good trap). Since the player was just talking about the door, I assume they're searching that, and the trap was discharged by the failed search. The player was thinking about looking for treasure, though, and would have found the pixie had they stated a clear goal. Now we argue because the player wanted something else, and I've now revealed there's a trap on the north door, so there's no clean takebacks. And, this exactly kind of situation is one of the reasons I switched. Maybe you don't have these, or ask enough clarifying questions to avoid it, and, if so, awesome! Great to hear about games well played!</p><p></p><p></p><p>You misunderstand. No one discussing this expects a master's understanding of the craft. I do not set up my scenes with only one way to solve a problem and the players have to guess or use exact, real-world methods to solve it. If there's a locked door with a frozen lock, I don't know how the party is going to bypass it. I can think of a few ways, sure, even very likely ways, but all I know is that the door is locked and the lock is frozen and that's going to make any check to pick it go at disadvantage. Past that, I lean on established information. The players then engage, and based on their approach and goal, I adjudicate. If a player wants to lift the door from the hinges, for instance, they don't have to tell me exactly how that works, they just tell me 'I'm going to try to lift the door from the hinges. I'm proficient in smith's tools, if that helps.' Then, I evaluate that. Someone proficient in smith's tools probably understands how hinges work, since they make them. So, I'll set a DC as 'okay, sounds like a physical effort, so that'll be a STR check. Not that hard, though, it's not a heavy door, so DC 10 sounds good. You can add your proficiency in smith's tools if you want." Another player may then chime in with, "I don't know how hinges work, but I'm strong and trained in athletics, can I help?" "Sure, player 1 roll with advantage, please." If the check passes, they lift the door and it's now open, but cannot be closed without remounting it. Success, with a complication related to the approach. If they fail, the attempt fails and they've made a lot of noise as a tool slips. I check to see if anything nearby would investigate that noise. </p><p></p><p></p><p>Sure, you're assuming the method and goals, and maybe that works for you. It didn't work for me.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Happy gaming!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 7294666, member: 16814"] Well, yes, because the player caused the thing to be authored. Whether or not the player directly does the authoring or makes the DM respond by authoring what the player wants doesn't matter. If the player declares 'I'm looking for a secret door, Perception 16!' and then the DM adds a secret door because of that roll, then the player is authoring a bit of the fiction, whoever narrates. This is a very narrow point that you're trying to make, and not a successful one. Did you think this was going to encourage me to listen to you again, or... what, exactly? You seem to think I'm attacking you, and accusing you of badwrong. Nothing could be further from the truth. We're discussion how to play pretend elves, not if we're bad people because of how we play pretend elves. I'm arguing from my position, you from yours. Neither is the best way to play, but both are the right way to play for us, respectively. Literally, your example was dropping dice and naming a line on the character sheet. You then went back after and said that you'd then have to ask clarifying questions about the dropping of the dice and naming a line on the character sheet. When the exactly thing I said was happening was the crux of your example, which you then had to say that you'd have to go back and ask the players to do more than just drop the dice and name a line on their character sheet, I kinda feel like my point was made. Kudos for asking for more information, though. However, my point stands that your players are doing exactly what I said I was trying to avoid. That you then address it after the fact doesn't change what actually happened there. Well, I wasn't talking about your first post, was I? And that's great, if it works for you. It no longer works for me, for the many, many reasons I've outlined. Again, glad this works for you. It doesn't for me, because, well 1) hyperbole aside, the exact situation being discussed in game isn't the same as the last ones. If the players are searching every 10' of every wall in a dungeon where all the walls are the same, sure, we can skip to the end, but that's not the game I run. If my players do that, there's a lot of 'okay, you spend 10 minutes on that wall and find nothing. Let me check for wandering monsters." In point of fact, in my game, if there's something to find on that wall, I'll telegraph it. I'll use a player's passive score for a skill to provide a clue that something is different at this stretch of wall, and they'll either be interested and start declaring actions or they won't be. There will never be a large body of previously established 'drop dice and name a skill' to begin with. Also, I've grown to hate tons of useless rolls. 2)But no how. How is important to me. How lets me drive the fiction to match what the player is really trying to do so I can engage what my players find interesting. 3) yup, the player tells you a number, and now you have to interpret or ignore that number. That's not an approach, though. Searching is an action, yes, but how you search is the approach. Are you touching the altar while you search it? BAM! Are you not touching the altar? No BAM. Approach is critical, and I do not want to interpret a player's declaration of a skill to include such things as the scene hinges upon. I don't want to argue 'but my character wouldn't have done it that way!' anymore. If you don't have that problem, awesome, man, glad it works for you. I had that problem. I don't anymore, because I changed how I play to require clearly stated approaches. Can you do that along with player declared rolls? You betcha. I've found it doesn't work out that well for me and my group because it's too easy to fall back into the habits I want to change. Climbing the tree is a goal, though. I climb the tree explicitly states the goal. This isn't a good example of not clearly stating a goal. Why you want that goal is generally irrelevant, although if your eventual plan is to jump off the top of the tree, do three flips, and stick the landing on the back of that wild horse galloping by, I'd really hope you ran that whole plan past me first so that I can, 1) skip the check to climb the tree (it's easily climbed, and this isn't the interesting part of your action) and 2) let you know that's going to be really, really hard to do before you try. If you insist, well, a DC 25 DEX check sounds about right. You can use Acrobatics with that, or if you think something else will help make a case. I'm not going to ask for a check for most of those, though. If you go looking through that pile of bones, and something was in it, you found it, no check needed. If you look for a secret door in the wall by X approach, make a check -- one decided by your choice of approach -- and we'll see if you found something. If the approach is to examine the wall for a hidden door, relying on your expertise as a stonemason (proficient in masonry tools) and your racial understanding of stonework (mountain dwarf) to see if the setting of the bricks is off, well, that's an intelligence check, modified by perception (you're looking) or masonry tools (experience), with advantage due being a dwarf. By clearly stating an approach, the player can drive the check towards their strengths. If they just make a WIS (perception) check, it won't be as favorable to them. Sure, it is. If a player declares "I search! I got a perception 19!" you're going to have to ask what they're searching for. Especially if there's a hidden pixie in the corner behind that burlap sack AND a secret door in the west wall AND a trap on the door in the north wall. If you don't know the goal, how can you adjudicate the action at all? What you mean is that you don't ask for an overt statement of a goal if you can reasonably deduce or assume the goal. And that's fine, most all of use have done that and still do. I've found, though, that I'm not my players, and they're thinking and assumptions aren't mine, so by requiring a clearly stated goal -- what they want to accomplish -- I can head off miscommunications or bad assumptions and the game doesn't have to backtrack that often. To return to the above example, finding the pixie is DC 14, finding the secret door is DC 17, and finding the trap is DC 25 (good trap). Since the player was just talking about the door, I assume they're searching that, and the trap was discharged by the failed search. The player was thinking about looking for treasure, though, and would have found the pixie had they stated a clear goal. Now we argue because the player wanted something else, and I've now revealed there's a trap on the north door, so there's no clean takebacks. And, this exactly kind of situation is one of the reasons I switched. Maybe you don't have these, or ask enough clarifying questions to avoid it, and, if so, awesome! Great to hear about games well played! You misunderstand. No one discussing this expects a master's understanding of the craft. I do not set up my scenes with only one way to solve a problem and the players have to guess or use exact, real-world methods to solve it. If there's a locked door with a frozen lock, I don't know how the party is going to bypass it. I can think of a few ways, sure, even very likely ways, but all I know is that the door is locked and the lock is frozen and that's going to make any check to pick it go at disadvantage. Past that, I lean on established information. The players then engage, and based on their approach and goal, I adjudicate. If a player wants to lift the door from the hinges, for instance, they don't have to tell me exactly how that works, they just tell me 'I'm going to try to lift the door from the hinges. I'm proficient in smith's tools, if that helps.' Then, I evaluate that. Someone proficient in smith's tools probably understands how hinges work, since they make them. So, I'll set a DC as 'okay, sounds like a physical effort, so that'll be a STR check. Not that hard, though, it's not a heavy door, so DC 10 sounds good. You can add your proficiency in smith's tools if you want." Another player may then chime in with, "I don't know how hinges work, but I'm strong and trained in athletics, can I help?" "Sure, player 1 roll with advantage, please." If the check passes, they lift the door and it's now open, but cannot be closed without remounting it. Success, with a complication related to the approach. If they fail, the attempt fails and they've made a lot of noise as a tool slips. I check to see if anything nearby would investigate that noise. Sure, you're assuming the method and goals, and maybe that works for you. It didn't work for me. Happy gaming! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Players Self-Assigning Rolls
Top