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

[iserith]

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.

What you established is insufficiently vague for adjudication in my view. It's like saying "I grapple the orc..." when there are 8 orcs surrounding your character. Which orc? Or, in the case of your offer, which life experiences are relevant to what you're trying to recall?

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.

I'm not sure what you mean by "readable." It's really more about being on the same page with the player as to what the character is trying to achieve and how so I can adjudicate fairly. This reduces misunderstandings and unfairness. I'll add to this below.

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).

If a player describes what they want to do and it's too vague to adjudicate in my estimation, then I'll just ask for clarification. The goal is to work toward not having to do that though. Or not do it very often.

But please note that I already covered where you could derive approaches for recalling lore - Chapter 7 of the PHB. So it's not like it's a great mystery and is available to anyone who has access to the Basic Rules. If a player has read that chapter or goes back to cross-reference it, what actions sometimes get what ability checks is all spelled out. I mentioned this to both you and Hussar upthread.

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?

I don't see any cons in this approach. It's simple and accessible and mitigates misunderstandings and unfairness. The only people who don't find it simple is adults who are used to asking to make ability checks. Old dogs, new tricks and all that. Kids and players new to RPGs seem to have no issue.

It also gets the player thinking about not rolling that fickle d20 if he or can avoid it and treating skill proficiency investment as insurance rather than a button to push. It also plays into the "middle path" method (DMG, p. 236) wherein the DM "can encourage your players to strike a balance between relying on bonuses and abilities and paying attention to the game and immersing themselves in its world."

And as far as your approach for handling this as a DM goes - if that's what you mean - I don't actually know what it is. I only know that you've given an example of a player describing what he or she wants to do in the context of my approach and I've told you that to me it is insufficiently vague. It has the look of someone trying to pay lip service to the requirement of stating a reasonably specific approach rather than someone who embraced it as an opportunity to expound upon the character's background while seeking additional information or verification of the player's assumption.

Thanks for answering my questions in any case. I appreciate it.

 

[iserith]

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.

Right. I'm not a math guy, so I'll have to leave it to people smarter than me to calculate the odds, but being able to roll anywhere from 1 to 20 is not great, even to a dummy like me who doesn't really know the intricacies of the math. It's best avoided wherever possible in my view, especially since you can't avoid it all the time (particularly due to attack rolls and saving throws).

 

[FrogReaver]

What you established is insufficiently vague for adjudication in my view. It's like saying "I grapple the orc..." when there are 8 orcs surrounding your character. Which orc? Or, in the case of your offer, which life experiences are relevant to what you're trying to recall?



I'm not sure what you mean by "readable." It's really more about being on the same page with the player as to what the character is trying to achieve and how so I can adjudicate fairly. This reduces misunderstandings and unfairness. I'll add to this below.



If a player describes what they want to do and it's too vague to adjudicate in my estimation, then I'll just ask for clarification. The goal is to work toward not having to do that though. Or not do it very often.

But please note that I already covered where you could derive approaches for recalling lore - Chapter 7 of the PHB. So it's not like it's a great mystery and is available to anyone who has access to the Basic Rules. If a player has read that chapter or goes back to cross-reference it, what actions sometimes get what ability checks is all spelled out. I mentioned this to both you and Hussar upthread.



I don't see any cons in this approach. It's simple and accessible and mitigates misunderstandings and unfairness. The only people who don't find it simple is adults who are used to asking to make ability checks. Old dogs, new tricks and all that. Kids and players new to RPGs seem to have no issue.

It also gets the player thinking about not rolling that fickle d20 if he or can avoid it and treating skill proficiency investment as insurance rather than a button to push. It also plays into the "middle path" method (DMG, p. 236) wherein the DM "can encourage your players to strike a balance between relying on bonuses and abilities and paying attention to the game and immersing themselves in its world."

And as far as your approach for handling this as a DM goes - if that's what you mean - I don't actually know what it is. I only know that you've given an example of a player describing what he or she wants to do in the context of my approach and I've told you that to me it is insufficiently vague. It has the look of someone trying to pay lip service to the requirement of stating a reasonably specific approach rather than someone who embraced it as an opportunity to expound upon the character's background while seeking additional information or verification of the player's assumption.

Thanks for answering my questions in any case. I appreciate it.

So, the most obvious con at this point is that despite me listing a goal and approach, your style would have you come back to me and state that my approach was too vague (which brings back up my previous criticism that I can be super specific, pedantically so, but that doing so will take a long long time out of playing the game). In short, , your style fails to be able to handle all goal's and approaches. That's a bit of an issue when it's the only mechanism your style has.

I'm also curious about the other tenant of your playstyle. Only roll a check if there's a meaningful consequence of failure. In more every recall lore scenario there is not going to be a meaningful consequence of failure, which means in the situations we are describing that you are either going to tell me yes or no with no check ever involved.

 

[iserith]

So, the most obvious con at this point is that despite me listing a goal and approach, your style would have you come back to me and state that my approach was too vague (which brings back up my previous criticism that I can be super specific, pedantically so, but that doing so will take a long long time out of playing the game). In short, , your style fails to be able to handle all goal's and approaches. That's a bit of an issue when it's the only mechanism your style has.

An approach to a goal that doesn't actually tell anyone anything or doesn't tell the DM necessary information isn't a fault of this method. It's the fault of the player for not being sufficiently clear as to what he or she wants to do and how. "I grapple the orc so that it can't run aggressively toward the wizard." That's a goal (prevent orc from moving toward wizard) and approach (grappling). "Okay, which orc? There's eight of them." That's on the player, not on the method.

Get asked for clarification once and this issue is typically resolved. It's a skill like any other. You get better at it by doing it instead of doing that other thing likely you've been trained to do which is ask to make ability checks.

I'm also curious about the other tenant of your playstyle. Only roll a check if there's a meaningful consequence of failure. In more every recall lore scenario there is not going to be a meaningful consequence of failure, which means in the situations we are describing that you are either going to tell me yes or no with no check ever involved.

I addressed this recently in another thread on a similar topic and I'll note that an ability check having a meaningful consequence for failure is not "my" idea - it's in the rules, DMG p. 237. I didn't just make it up. If there is no meaningful consequence for failure in the situation, you are correct in that there will be no ability check. Which is great, especially if you yourself have taken steps to remove that chance of failure! You're probably going to get the information you seek, provided that (per the rules) what you described isn't impossible. That's what you want, right? It would suck if the d20 screwed you out of that information or verification in my view.

But at the same time, the meaningful consequence for failure is all relative. What is "meaningful?" It could be a number of things in the fictional context. Not being able to recall that this devil that is tearing its way past the fighter to get to your wizard is immune to fire and poison is going to suck when you're playing Pyranor the Toxic, the wizard who specializes in fire and poison. That's a wasted turn staring you in the face, potentially. Now that's a pretty meaningful consequence in my view. So if you don't do something that makes the attempt to recall that devils are immune to fire and poison trivially easy, you might be next after that devil has snapped your party's fighter in half and chucked his remains into the nearby acid pool.

Generally speaking, if I ask for an ability check to recall lore, I'm going to do something like progress combined with a setback if you fail the check as well: You get some information, just not what you were seeking. Then it's on you to make what you did end up recalling useful.

 

[Oofta]

Related to what @FrogReaver is trying to get at, something I hadn't noticed about the response @Elfcrusher gave to my question about a history check about trolls.

Because I specifically asked about ranged attacks, would I know about their regen? Assume I'm a newbie for a moment. The most I know about trolls is from Billy Goat's Gruff and what I can remember from Norse mythology. I might expect them to live under bridges and have multiple heads but I'd never suspect regen. Assuming, again, trolls aren't all that common in the region. As a newbie I'd have no reason to even think of asking about weaknesses.

 

[FrogReaver]

Related to what @FrogReaver is trying to get at, something I hadn't noticed about the response @Elfcrusher gave to my question about a history check about trolls.

Because I specifically asked about ranged attacks, would I know about their regen? Assume I'm a newbie for a moment. The most I know about trolls is from Billy Goat's Gruff and what I can remember from Norse mythology. I might expect them to live under bridges and have multiple heads but I'd never suspect regen. Assuming, again, trolls aren't all that common in the region. As a newbie I'd have no reason to even think of asking about weaknesses.

Just to jump on this. This is essentially the same issue I'm getting at.

Their playstyle demands I be more specific about either my goal or approach than I can be. @iserith doesn't want my approach to be recalling lore based on my life experiences, he wants it to be recalling lore based on my time in the Great Library of the capital city (something more specific). Well that's fine I suppose, but what if my knowledge about trolls didn't come from the library but the drunken adventurer I met in a bar?

I guess I could keep trying to recall based on different scenarios, but that's pedantic and not fun for no one. The new player in your troll example could do the same thing. But that gets old fast. The question is how do we shorthand that into a mechanics such that we don't have to be so specific that the same phrase can be used 20000 times with a slight variation. I need an all in approach on these things.

That shouldn't be hard to realize.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Another advantage to specifying an approach is that if you don't, the some DMs may assume it for you.

If the player says, "Can I make a Perception check to see if there's anyone on the other side of the door?" then many DMs feel that they're within their rights to inform the player that their ear is stuck to the door and the mimic is making a surprise attack against them.

I don't run games that way because I feel that "gotchas" like that are cheap; I'd clarify the approach by staight-forwardly asking if they are listening with their ear to the door. But some DMs don't like to do so as they see it as potentially tipping their hand, and I can understand that viewpoint. As a result I prefer to be fairly specific in my approach if I think there's any room for doubt or miscommunication.

 

[Oofta]

Just to jump on this. This is essentially the same issue I'm getting at.

Their playstyle demands I be more specific about either my goal or approach than I can be. @iserith doesn't want my approach to be recalling lore based on my life experiences, he wants it to be recalling lore based on my time in the Great Library of the capital city (something more specific). Well that's fine I suppose, but what if my knowledge about trolls didn't come from the library but the drunken adventurer I met in a bar?

I guess I could keep trying to recall based on different scenarios, but that's pedantic and not fun for no one. The new player in your troll example could do the same thing. But that gets old fast. The question is how do we shorthand that into a mechanics such that we don't have to be so specific that the same phrase can be used 20000 times with a slight variation. I need an all in approach on these things.

That shouldn't be hard to realize.

The other problem I have with the style as I understand it is that it's nonsensical. Memory doesn't work that way.

If I think about red dragons, I don't remember just that they have resistance to fire. I also recall the breath weapon, they fly, they get far more powerful as they age and the older ones can shrug off spells that normally should have affected them. Lairs for older dragons almost become extensions of the dragons themselves. I may not remember the fear aura or legendary actions (however I want to state that in game terms) depending on how recently I read the entry which is going to be pretty random.

 

[iserith]

Just to jump on this. This is essentially the same issue I'm getting at.

I can't read the posts of the person you're quoting, so I can only address your specific assertions below.

Their playstyle demands I be more specific about either my goal or approach than I can be.

I have faith you can do it, barring any personal challenges or learning differences for which accommodations may have to be made.

@iserith doesn't want my approach to be recalling lore based on my life experiences, he wants it to be recalling lore based on my time in the Great Library of the capital city (something more specific). Well that's fine I suppose, but what if my knowledge about trolls didn't come from the library but the drunken adventurer I met in a bar?

Yeah, so say that. It's your character and character's life experiences. Help contribute to the exciting, memorable story we're creating together. Increase the fun by entertaining everyone else at the table with an interesting detail from your character's past in a reasonably succinct way.

I guess I could keep trying to recall based on different scenarios, but that's pedantic and not fun for no one. The new player in your troll example could do the same thing. But that gets old fast. The question is how do we shorthand that into a mechanics such that we don't have to be so specific that the same phrase can be used 20000 times with a slight variation. I need an all in approach on these things.

I don't know which troll scenario you're referring to. But I would examine why I want to go the mechanics in the first place. That's just asking for a chance to fail without even trying to gain automatic success sans dice. That's not a good strategy for success in my view, even if you're only ever trying to do things in which you have invested skill proficiencies. In a game where there are no or few meaningful consequences for failure, then maybe it makes sense because there's no cost associated with failure so why the heck not go to the dice, but that sort of game is not what is being discussed in the original post. That kind of game you may as well be using the "Rolling With It" method (DMG, p. 236). It notes, however, that "a drawback of this approach is that roleplaying can diminish if players feel that their die rolls, rather than their decisions and characterizations, always determine success."

 

[Oofta]

Another advantage to specifying an approach is that if you don't, the some DMs may assume it for you.

If the player says, "Can I make a Perception check to see if there's anyone on the other side of the door?" then many DMs feel that they're within their rights to inform the player that their ear is stuck to the door and the mimic is making a surprise attack against them.

I don't run games that way because I feel that "gotchas" like that are cheap; I'd clarify the approach by staight-forwardly asking if they are listening with their ear to the door. But some DMs don't like to do so as they see it as potentially tipping their hand, and I can understand that viewpoint. As a result I prefer to be fairly specific in my approach if I think there's any room for doubt or miscommunication.

I think conflating "gotcha" DMs with any style or approach is a strawman. A gotcha DM with an adversarial relationship with their players is going to be a gotcha DM no matter what style is used.

As far as what I would do? If in doubt ask for clarification. Assume the safest option possible. Ask for details if it matters. In a campaign where mimics and contact poison exist (they never have in my campaign) I'll verify before anything is touched or moved.