D&D 5E Players: Why Do You Want to Roll a d20?

[5ekyu]

Let me describe the following for my games.

Scenery Events - Whatever question there is can be handled without fail by most anyone without any check. It really takes a flaw or circumstantial hindrance to impose risk. Crossing a river on a sturdy bridge, using handy ladder or board to cross a 10-15' pit, eating without spilling... well...ok maybe not that one. The key is anyone can do this using what's available without fail without needing to know specific stats of the character.

Ability Events - here we have events, tasks or challenges where not everyone can succeed without fail. Some reference to character stats must be made. That reference may lead to "no roll" resolutions or may lead to checks. It's not uncommon for these to be auto for some and roll for others within a group. Jumping a 10' or 15' pit is a good example.

While the fussin' keeps circling do you do this or that, I think in fact we mostly all do both, have both, and the perception of difference comes about from how much we do either.

In my games, most challenges that matter, events that matter, etc fall into the second category, ones where it's not just a scenery event - it's not just solvable by anyone regardless of who it is by "using what's available."

In my games, the second most likely type of challenge that matters will be one where it's a scenery and ability event - you have to use what's available and reference character - both.

In my games, at the bottom of likely challenge that matter are scenery events. If it's something anyone can do, it's not really gonna matter as far as being a challenge worth spending resolution on. Usually these are leading to or following after the real challenges. "I spend 10000 gold to build abc for the town" might get time and have major in-game impact but it's not the challenge or necessary needing resolution. Most likely it's the follow-up of an actual challenge success.

To me, for it to be a significant point made about how your odds of success improve if you dont roll etc, it sounds like there are a lot more scenery events being used in that game than I normally think of as a hood balance. When I have seen games where that was true, it seemed to really favor some players over others because simply put the characters'stats were less often involved in the resolution of events that matter. On the other hand some might think if you go too far the other way, you might get to where player choice doesn't matter and it's just about stats and rolls.

.for me, I think myself the mechanics have enough ways for advsntage, disadvantage and auto success that I dont fear the latter at all. So, I am fine with almost all of the events that matter being ability events or ability and scenery events.

Ymmv.

 

[Maxperson]

If, on the other hand, you tie in your background, and come up with a goal and approach that is either a) more specific, or b) more likely to trigger the Rule of Cool, maybe he/she will either ask for a roll or just give you an auto-success.

Not even necessarily the Rule of Cool, but also the rules of Specificity and Reminding DM. I have to track a ton of things and I can't remember all those things AND everything about PC backgrounds. I may have forgotten that your PC grew up on the border of the Troll Moors. Tying that into your description will ensure that I am aware of that fact when I give my answer.

 

[5ekyu]

I think the internet has a distorting effect on how people actually play, so I don't really know what your game or anyone else's would actually be like.

The one thing I can comment on is the "overcoming obstacles with a D20". I probably just focus on different obstacles. As an example a lock to a thief is a minor obstacle, it's just a mundane thing they do as part of their day-to-day job. If it's critical to the story to get past the door, the D20 will be used to determine time, or that a different (riskier) alternative needs to be used. I do sometimes throw in complex traps or trap-like environments that require a great deal of interaction similar but more flexible than 4E's skill challenges.

A more significant obstacle might be infiltrating a party. Some approaches will probably include a D20 roll. How good is your disguise? If trying to sweet-talk your way past a guard what do you say? What you say may be informed by other checks such as history or insight and will impact the target DC or grant you advantage. It might even be automatic if you took some time to do some research or come up with something clever.

Decisions players make usually have more impact than the die rolls when overcoming obstacles unless the group is trying something truly risky. If there is a significant risk, I'll let them know and let the die fall where it may. In most cases, a bad roll just leads to a setback, not complete failure.

Some of my most memorable and fun moments in D&D have come from both extremes of the die roll. Some of the biggest laughs comes from the pronouncement "I just rolled a 1". Some of the biggest cheers come from the exclamation "20!"

"If it's critical to the story to get past the door, the D20 will be used to determine time, or that a different (riskier) alternative needs to be used. "

Yep...

That's just one flavor of "some progress with setback" to me
.

"Ok so, this lock is tougher - some signs of neglect actually working against you, you figure you can get it but it will take time. Then again, that neglect also tells you its likely force able if you are in s hurry and want to risk noise."

 

[DEFCON 1]

Based on what little I can recollect from high school Latin, "erat" is derived from "sum", which has its own special rules for conjugation (or as my Latin teacher used to say, "because of those drunken Romans"). I no longer remember what the correct conjugation is, but I don't think it's "-at".

"People called Romanes, they go, the house?"

 

[Guest 6801328]

If it's critical to the story to get past the door, the D20 will be used to determine time, or that a different (riskier) alternative needs to be used.

There's a lot to unpack in that very short scenario, but some comments:

1. If it's truly "critical" to get past the door, then I wouldn't leave it to the swinginess of a d20. "Hmm, bummer, you roll a 3. Um, ok, well, this adventure is over I guess." I'm being facetious, of course...I don't think anybody actually plays that way...but that illustrates the general problem of gating the adventure behind RNG. This also applies to optional things: why put some treasure behind a secret door the discovery of which is totally random? I suppose some people would ascribe the passive Perception check ("You discover a secret door!") to be an example of "character skill" but I see it as rewarding rules mastery (in the sense of character building).
2. You mention "using d20 to determine time". Yes, if there's some urgency to the task then it starts to make sense to tie in dice rolls. But I still want some kind of decision-making to get to that point. Maybe (as has been discussed in other threads) the players are making a choice between several alternatives: picking the lock versus kicking down the door versus using a spell slot. I want the players to be balancing trade-offs in making these decisions. If their only choice is to pick the lock, and they must roll a d20 to determine whether the monster catches them before they do, then there's no actual engagement. I wouldn't write an adventure (even if only in my head) with the plan: "Ok, when they get to this point the rogue is going to have to start making Thieves' Tools checks, and for each failure X will happen." That's asking the players to enjoy my narrative, not to engage with it themselves. But if they had to weigh various risks, and settled on the lock-picking, then when the die is rolled it's because of their decision, not because they landed on that square of the board game.

 

[5ekyu]

There's a lot to unpack in that very short scenario, but some comments:

1. If it's truly "critical" to get past the door, then I wouldn't leave it to the swinginess of a d20. "Hmm, bummer, you roll a 3. Um, ok, well, this adventure is over I guess." I'm being facetious, of course...I don't think anybody actually plays that way...but that illustrates the general problem of gating the adventure behind RNG. This also applies to optional things: why put some treasure behind a secret door the discovery of which is totally random? I suppose some people would ascribe the passive Perception check ("You discover a secret door!") to be an example of "character skill" but I see it as rewarding rules mastery (in the sense of character building).
2. You mention "using d20 to determine time". Yes, if there's some urgency to the task then it starts to make sense to tie in dice rolls. But I still want some kind of decision-making to get to that point. Maybe (as has been discussed in other threads) the players are making a choice between several alternatives: picking the lock versus kicking down the door versus using a spell slot. I want the players to be balancing trade-offs in making these decisions. If their only choice is to pick the lock, and they must roll a d20 to determine whether the monster catches them before they do, then there's no actual engagement. I wouldn't write an adventure (even if only in my head) with the plan: "Ok, when they get to this point the rogue is going to have to start making Thieves' Tools checks, and for each failure X will happen." That's asking the players to enjoy my narrative, not to engage with it themselves. But if they had to weigh various risks, and settled on the lock-picking, then when the die is rolled it's because of their decision, not because they landed on that square of the board game.

"If their only choice is to pick the lock, and they must roll a d20 to determine whether the monster catches them before they do, then there's no actual engagement"

Agree completely, but fortunately, I find those kinds of multiply limited setups to be exceedingly rare, even in games where there are lotsa Rolling.

Just as a player, if we were seeing the trade-off there, that risk, might choose to try and setup distractions in case monster got close or to spy out and see if it's likely while the lock was being picked. Even maybe just some caltrops at the ready or silence spell.

But certainly, the pick (msybe get thru no noise or maybe found by patrol) vs kick (quick but noisy) or "knock" (spend resource, risk magic) seems very much more enjoyable a setup to play thru.

 

[Oofta]

There's a lot to unpack in that very short scenario, but some comments:

1. If it's truly "critical" to get past the door, then I wouldn't leave it to the swinginess of a d20. "Hmm, bummer, you roll a 3. Um, ok, well, this adventure is over I guess." I'm being facetious, of course...I don't think anybody actually plays that way...but that illustrates the general problem of gating the adventure behind RNG. This also applies to optional things: why put some treasure behind a secret door the discovery of which is totally random? I suppose some people would ascribe the passive Perception check ("You discover a secret door!") to be an example of "character skill" but I see it as rewarding rules mastery (in the sense of character building).
2. You mention "using d20 to determine time". Yes, if there's some urgency to the task then it starts to make sense to tie in dice rolls. But I still want some kind of decision-making to get to that point. Maybe (as has been discussed in other threads) the players are making a choice between several alternatives: picking the lock versus kicking down the door versus using a spell slot. I want the players to be balancing trade-offs in making these decisions. If their only choice is to pick the lock, and they must roll a d20 to determine whether the monster catches them before they do, then there's no actual engagement. I wouldn't write an adventure (even if only in my head) with the plan: "Ok, when they get to this point the rogue is going to have to start making Thieves' Tools checks, and for each failure X will happen." That's asking the players to enjoy my narrative, not to engage with it themselves. But if they had to weigh various risks, and settled on the lock-picking, then when the die is rolled it's because of their decision, not because they landed on that square of the board game.

In a recent game, there was a chase scene that I was improvising based on events. A few NPCs fled combat (with the McGuffin of course) and ran into a building, locking the door behind them. The rogue ran up to the door but missed the DC to open the lock so the bad guys had another round to try to escape. The check was important because of a time constraint.

In non-time critical scenarios, failing the attempt to pick the lock may result in a minor setback. Maybe the lock is now jammed and you have to break it down and risk alerting the guard. Maybe you have to use a different door that's better patrolled. If you have all the time in the world and are so good you can't jam the lock (I have a house rule that it's a risk if you miss by 10 or more) then it just gets narrated.

I can not remember a scenario where the adventure came to a halt because of single bad roll.

 

[Oofta]

,,, eating without spilling... well...ok maybe not that one. ....

You've obviously never met my brother-in-law or his kids. He doesn't even need to pick up a utensil, if there's food on the plate that can stain, he will have a stain on his shirt. I think it has something to do with quantum entanglement of his clothes and food staining particles, but I've never been able to raise the funds to do a proper scientific study. Maybe I should look into a gofund.me campaign.

 

[Charlaquin]

This is an aspect of the OP's question that hasn't been given enough due in this thread.

I feel the exact same way about d20. The distribution just feels more "swingy", as you say.

I used to feel this way, before I adopted goal and approach resolution. If you have to make a successful check to accomplish anything, then a d20 is far too swingy without unwieldy-large bonuses. With +5 from ability and +6 from proficiency, the highest level of skill you can achieve without being a rogue or a bard, you still have a 15% chance of failing at a medium difficulty task and a 40% chance of failing at a hard task. In my opinion, that’s way too unreliable if you need to roll every time you attempt something. I’d much rather have the consistency of a 3d6 bell curve.

On the other hand, if you only need to make a check when your action has a logical chance of and meaningful consequence for failure, then some swingyness is much more desirable. In my opinion.

 

[FrogReaver]

I'll pose some similar questions to you that I posed to Hussar:

Can you think of any benefits that might accrue to the players or the play experience as a whole by players describing what experience their characters may have had with the lore the character is trying to recall?

In other words, instead of seeing this as an inconvenience or imposition on the player, what kind of opportunity does it represent?

That seems like a more positive way of thinking about it to me and I'm interested to hear your answer.

I'll answer your question, but please go back and answer the real issue I brought up in the post of mine you just quoted.

There, you have a goal and an approach. That Hussar and I shorthand that to DM do i know anything about this creature shouldn’t be an issue. The goal and approach is implicit. What’s so hard to understand about some actions having implicit goals or approaches.

To answer your question: Yes, there are pros and cons to everything. Rarely is something universally better than something else.

The benfits I see in that approach are: it makes the game much more readable after the fact, it keeps the action focused in scene using more in game language.

Now the cons I see are: It's not always easy to put into words overly general approaches to a goal. "I draw upon all my life experiences" is an approach but it's an approach that took a 14+ page thread for anyone to suggest this as the proper way to ask that question in your style. So while there may exist a simple way to phrase such an action in your game in your preferred style, it's not something that necessarily is going to be easy to come up with on the spot. (That's where the magic words criticism comes in. When I as a player convey something in the best language I can come up with on the spot but since I didn't phrase it exactly as you prefer then it's not possible).

So I have one additional question for you on top of the, "isn't this implicit question the same dang thing". What cons do you see to your approach? What pros do you see to my approach?