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

[Seramus]

Then, sure, you've managed to define the term in a way that your argument succeeds, because only a ridiculous person would disagree with your argument premised on that definition.

Disagreement is exactly what happened! I was quite surprised. But either way, I’m trying to disengage from the conversation at this point. They have the right to enjoy the game in whatever manner they wish.

 

[ClaytonCross]

...But that is not what I ask of my players. All I ask is an approach to their goal. If they want to disable a trap, I want to know more than just that goal. Where do they stand in relation to the trap? This matters.

Imagine, if you will, a trapped treasure chest that fires a crossbow bolt when opened. I want to know what the player does when disabling the trap. Because if he is standing behind the chest and fails his check, the trap may trigger, but it wouldn't hit him. Additionally, having to be a bit more specific about your action adds tension. Your approach may affect the DC of disabling the trap, or make the outcome of a failed check less severe. I don't want traps to be this abstract videogamey thing. I want the players to imagine the situation, and imagine how their character might act. No player is required to be an expert on traps, and at any time a player is free to ask the DM "What do I know about this sort of trap?".

Placement and roll they are calling for is all you justify here. I do that too. Player "I move up to the front of the chest, can I roll investigation to check for hidden trap?" GM: "Sure" DC15 to identify the check, or what ever I had listed. No further description and not knowledge about traps. Players can take different approaches but I don't force players to have creative narrative and do require a role. Which they can call or I can. This may be more "abstract videogamey" but at the same time its faster and bogs down the turns less with unnecessarily over narrating everything and boring my player to death. If they want to do something they ask, if they can and I narrate only what is useful to their intended goal.

More over my problem with this is forcing players to play there characters your way. You force them to narrate when they might not want to. Maybe they just want to open up the chest and move on. If they ask for more information because they want to make it more involved, I will give it to them. So instead of forcing their hand I invite a choice. We can end up in the same place on any chest with your method or mine but I prefer the player to choose how they want to play, even if they like "abstract videogamey", while the player next to them can choose to ask questions and play your way to an extent. However, success or failure will be determined by character stats not player description.

For clarity, my style of DM'ing is quite contrary to the way Matt Mercer runs his games. Matt narrates the actions of the players based on the outcome of a roll. I don't presume those actions, I ask my players what they do exactly. This then affects the outcome. The outcome of the dice still matters, but the actions of the players matter more.

I get that. Mine is more inline with his (at least for this) which is why I used that example. The thing is some players don't want to narrate every second and if you have ever watched critical role, you know his players have plenty of tension dispute playing this way instead of yours. I would also say that narrating what is required for players to identify a trap, means that every trap is foreshadowed and not a surprise or you narrate some rooms and halls like they are and waste a lot of time on pointless narrative.... That would boar me to death... But if your table is happy, I am not saying you are wrong. I am just saying I don't play that way because my players and myself don't like the narrative over kill.

I don't want you to do anything as a player. Whether you fail or succeed at disarming the trap is all the same to me. You can take a search action if you like, but I may ask you for more information.

If your asking about what I am dong to understand it, that is a requirement and we are the same page, but when you to how you are doing that you shift into a different style of play the puts infuses on forced narrative.... I can't stand that.

I am going to the chest, I am going to check if for traps, if it is trapped I will try do disarm it with my thieves tools..
vs
P: I am going to the chest. GM: how do you go to the chest? P:... I walk.... GM: ok when you check for traps, what do you do? P: ...I look at it and poke things, while listening for any strange noise and looking for strange movements" GM: "you find that you lift a little and there is a wire attached" P: … I cut it with the thieves tools" GM: "the wire is tight and you think cutting the wire will trigger the trap.... blah blah blah. ..

Version two here might be enjoyed by some people but others just want to open the disarm the chest and move on. Your forcing every player to choose #2 because YOU like it, requiring them to struggle through narration they might not want. If they ask for it, "what does the trap look like?" then they are inviting this. If they just say "can I roll thieves tools' to disarm it?" they asking not to spend the next 10 minutes narrating a single trap. As point in case, we have seen both happen on critical role. While this is happening the other players are setting there board, and that's when your party Barbarian runs past your party rogue and smashes the chest to pieces because the player of the barbarian is board and had enough. Which, could be bad for the rogue, but I get it. So I might have some chests easily smash able with small light damage AoE effects and I might have a few iron chests, so the barbarian has to let the rogue play it out if that's what the rogue wants to do. Alternatively the rogue might just want to roll for thieves too as well and it be a more than the rogue bargained for when they asked "what does the trap look like?".

That would take away all the suspense and make disarming traps boring. I might as well not include them then. When you state an approach to any action in my games, this affects how things play out.

-If you use your thief's tools, the DC may be lower, but if you fail your tools could break or get stuck.
-If you require a second person to provide more light, so you can see the trap, this would lower the DC. But that person may be in the path of the trap if it triggers.
-If the trap can only fire once, then setting it off on purpose may be more simple than trying to disarm it. No roll needed.
-Plus, there's lots of other things that none-rogues are allowed to do to try and disable a trap without needing the skills of a rogue. You don't need to be a rogue to try and take out a trap. Rogues are just better at it.

Narrating a single trap for 10 mins while the rest of the party twiddling their thumbs can also be boring. Traps can still be useful even if they are not the focal point. The tension created by a trip which is disarmed with a simple test might come from pursuers or guards near by. If we are honest, unless traps are lethal they don't generally as suspense by themselves. This because the don't typically have an out come other than success or failure, or a restraint that applies a pressure on the player. However, they add tension bombs in movies by putting them on a timer. The D&D equivalent of that is a coming patrol or wandering monster. If the out come of failing the check is not death then tension is created by failure alerting the guards with the noise. If there is no potential instant death, no alerting of additional enemies, and no out come I which to avoid other than disarming the trap... there is not suspense using your method or mine and the trap is only useful for establishing a setting. In that case over narrating it is not adding anything but the time it takes up in the session.

The point of my style (and that of others) of adjudicating actions, is that we properly foreshadow traps, so that this game of searching every 5ft. is no longer required. And an added benefit, is that we give out more information about what the trap does, and how it operates, so players are better able to choose their actions.

… or... another way to say that is you add exhaustive levels of narration that put your players to sleep while you tell stories and they wait to actually make a decision> Then when they make a decision you "foreshadow" aka narrate more to tell them how to do the task the way they want or they are punished with automatic failure.

...or... a game of simon says, where the GM is constantly saying "ah, you didn't say..." got you moments because the GM requires them narrate everything which breaks down into players trying to narrate every 5ft to avoid being faulted for not stating a specific narration. Instead of them just calling for non-specific roll or allowing them to passively check.

Like I have said, I have seen this style of play go very very wrong and devolve into a GM guiding all players through narration, basically making the game "GM story time" and not a group playing D&D together. I am not saying this can't be done right. I am just saying I have seen it go very very wrong. If you are holding the line, that's good on you. I don't even want to go near it because I have some bad experiences being pushed over it by some GMs.

I tend to be very detailed in my descriptions, and often illustrate dungeons with maps and/or dungeon tiles. If I believe the players may have forgotten or missed an important detail about the situation, I will point that out to them and allow them to reconsider (such as when they might want to take cover). If my players position themselves out of range of the trap, then they don't need to make saves, because it can't hit them. It's an automatic success for them. This is how you also avoid cases where the players feel screwed over by their DM.

Sounds like a lot of GM story time and I would worry that I am leading my players to follow my choices for their characters by continually pointing out and allowing them to reconsider. The result of this, is that they know you are having them reconsider because its not how you would do it and since you control the world the world will agree with you that is a bad idea. I agree that if a player looks for and takes cover they can avoid or lower the DC of the save, but I don't have to forshadow with my method, so its up to them to ask if they spot the trap and they are preparing to disarm it while if they don't spot the trap, we establish a marching order for theater of the mind with ranges and on maps I will have them move up to a point, then describe an event, which could be a trap they just trigger or a guard walking out a door. Their positions are set so I just tell them who is effected or sees the guard based on line of sight and proximity.

You don't need to roll for everything. It speeds up the game a lot if you allow automatic successes and failures based on player actions.

Speeding up the game can be good and bad. Your narrating the game a lot in trade for automatic checks. So your slowing down the game for the GMs turn and bypassing the players turns as quickly as possible. I cut narrative, and give more time to players actions following through with each of there rolls. I can't say which is better for any group, but I prefer my way.

Isn't this exactly the same as what I do? You just spent several paragraphs railing against the idea of adjusting the check based on the described actions of the players... and here you say you do the exact same thing? The only difference I see, is that I resolve some situations without a check.

I adjust the check but compare it to the passives of the character sheet so I am still using the character. Your ignoring the character and the check for the player. A passive skill completing the check is very different than awarding or failing a check on players description because the player did make a character choice in choosing the skills, feats, etc, that make there character. So I am still honoring character choices and skills not player skills.

For example, if the players want to sneak past a guard, and the guard is completely drunk and/or unconscious, then that's an automatic success. You don't need to roll for everything.

If the DC is below the passive of a PC walking buy, I could agree, however, a PC with a -1 dex bonus, in plate for disadvantage, and not proficient stealth, would have a passive -6 and would have to roll or that character might still manage to trigger the DC5 (default 10 -5 disadvantage) passive perception of drunk or sleeping guard. I might hand wave this if its not important, but at the same time it could make for an interesting moment. So letting a player call for stealth to sneak by … adds tension... something have asked for multiple times, but is easily successful or perhaps a funny encounter they might remember... I will let the dice and character sheets decide. I might not have called for a roll, but if a player asks because they are not sure they can sneak by … its getting rolled. That is playing D&D to me.

So you also do automatic successes and failures? Passive skill level or not, that's not all that different from simply declaring a success for something the DM believes cannot fail. I don't see much of a difference here.

I am using character stats and you are using players skills of description. Its very different. A smart player plays a dumb character in your world the PC is still smart and cleaver dispite the dump stat. Where a dumb player playing a smart cleaver character is dumb despite maxed out at attributes and expertise in the skill.... If your players are playing characters close to themselves its not an issue but when they step away from that you void that decision by ignoring there characters stats.

So are you saying that if the players decide to blow up a trapped chest with a barrel of gunpowder from a safe distance, they still need to make a check? I'd say that's an automatic success... it probably destroys the chest and everything inside of it, but that trap is gone. Why bother to make a check for that?

Yes. It might not go off if they didn't arm it right. They might blow the chest off the stand but the chest survive. Kind of like the members of critical role vs doors. … Those are great moments I would not give up.

Why? Doesn't this drag things on longer than needed? Why can't the players just roll a rock across the pressure plates to set off the trap? Why would they need to make a check for that? It is something any person could do.

your countering your "gains" in efficiacnty with tons of narration. They can in my game too, but in my game they don't have to, They have to roll using there stats. Which is actually 2-3 seconds for a roll and some math vs 10 minutes of interpretive discussion, so way faster as a rule. The need to make the roll so its not based on the player but the players character which they created for this purpose and which they are literally asking to use any time they call for a roll … which always uses those characters stats.....

This whole discussion boils down to "If a character asks to use there character, why would you deny them that?"

 

[Hussar]

/snip
It seems to me that, rather than taking and interrogating prisoners, your style would encourage announcing a perception check in every single room. Which is the same problem you illustrated in the first paragraph, without any narration.

Why wouldn't you? If you're in a dungeon, why wouldn't you carefully observe every room before you enter? That's where passive perception comes in. I remember one character, a monk as I recall, having a fairly ridiculously high passive perception - he spent feats on it I guess, something like a 20 or so (I'm old, memory is not what it used to be).

So, by and large, he spotted virtually any trap automatically. So, I would chuck in stuff to see, and then let them play with it. As a DM, I kinda want them to see the traps/secret doors. Makes play more interesting. Ok, you see the tripwire on the chest. What do you do?

"I use my thieves tools to disarm the trap." to me is a perfectly acceptable answer. The trap isn't all that interesting. What's inside is interesting.

I've almost never heard any gaming stories about that super interesting pit trap. ((Although the Shaker in the first Shackled City adventure was pretty memorable)). It's a trap. Spot it, disarm it, move on.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Our argument was about someone who was falling, and you said they couldn’t attempt all three goals. Just one of them, which was mutually exclusive with the other two. That’s how we got onto the whole “only 10 flips, or 0 flips” thing.

Ah, I see where you're coming from now, but still disagree. For me, the attempt must have valid stakes -- big efforts at high risk must entail high costs or it's kinda bland. If you can go for 10 flips, because that gets you the big prize, but it's hard, then failing, to me, will entail a cost for the effort. Likewise, if you try to do the huge stunt of falling a long distance and taking no damage, the risk for that reward has to balance. If you can just do okay and you still get a reward for your effort, this means that decision wasn't really hard or challenging. Likewise, if you can aim lower but roll well and just get the big reward anyway, this means that there's never a reason to risk big failure -- you can stick to mediocre failure and hope the dice give you the big win.

I want my players to engage the fiction in a thoroughly risky way. To go for the big plays sometimes and risk the big setbacks. Your presentation of letting high rolls get more actively diminishes the roll of what the player puts at risk in the action. It encourages aiming for the middle to mitigate risk while still entertaining the possibility of large reward. It fights against the presentation of the game.

So, yes, if you try to fall 100' and take no damage (and aren't a monk), then the risk is big, it'll be hard, and failure will be ugly. The dice aren't to be looked at as a friend that can gift free stuff on high rolls, but a fickle monster that can hand out success and failure according to what you, the player, have risked. I do not view this to be at all a 10 flips or 0 flips. It's, like I've said, a 'did you succeed at the goal you set with your approach of doing flips.' The number of flips is color, but, as I don't tend to play farce, it'll never be 0 flips.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Disagreement is exactly what happened! I was quite surprised. But either way, I’m trying to disengage from the conversation at this point. They have the right to enjoy the game in whatever manner they wish.

I do sincerely hope you listened to the actual arguments and aren't walking away with the idea that people honestly agreed with the notion that it's either 10 flips or none. The disagreement was more "the number of flips don't matter, the goal does." It is a different way of thinking about the game from the discrete action resolution methods, but it's not incoherent nor does it require tools, like range of outcome, that assist making the discrete action resolution more engaging.

Again, if you're going to use discrete action resolution, especially as a proxy for goal attainment, then range of outcome rolls makes a lot of sense. I don't do that, though, so range of outcome doesn't really work for me.

 

[Charlaquin]

Our argument was about someone who was falling, and you said they couldn’t attempt all three goals. Just one of them, which was mutually exclusive with the other two. That’s how we got onto the whole “only 10 flips, or 0 flips” thing.

I believe the three possible goals for the falling character was someone else’s (Maxperson’s, maybe? I don’t really remember), and you said you would make all three outcomes possible at three different DCs, which I objected (incorrectly) that setting degrees of success in this way isn’t really supported in 5e. I’ve since been corrected, but I still would not attach all three possible outcomes to a single check. Based on the player’s goal (e.g. “reduce the damage” or “avoid the damage” or “land safely”) I would set one DC for the action, and it would be simple pass/fail.

Actually, in this specific example, I probably wouldn’t allow the player to take no damage. I would offer that they could instead make a Dexterity save to take half damage, and on a failure they would take an extra d6 of damage from the fall or something.

 

[Campbell]

Why wouldn't you? If you're in a dungeon, why wouldn't you carefully observe every room before you enter? That's where passive perception comes in. I remember one character, a monk as I recall, having a fairly ridiculously high passive perception - he spent feats on it I guess, something like a 20 or so (I'm old, memory is not what it used to be).

So, by and large, he spotted virtually any trap automatically. So, I would chuck in stuff to see, and then let them play with it. As a DM, I kinda want them to see the traps/secret doors. Makes play more interesting. Ok, you see the tripwire on the chest. What do you do?

"I use my thieves tools to disarm the trap." to me is a perfectly acceptable answer. The trap isn't all that interesting. What's inside is interesting.

I've almost never heard any gaming stories about that super interesting pit trap. ((Although the Shaker in the first Shackled City adventure was pretty memorable)). It's a trap. Spot it, disarm it, move on.

Searching thoroughly takes a lot of time and it occupies your attention. If you have all the time in the world and nothing else to do sure you would search every inch, but if you want to avoid patrolling monsters or sneak about so you can ambush the next group of monsters you come across you might not have time to search everything.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I believe the three possible goals for the falling character was someone else’s (Maxperson’s, maybe? I don’t really remember), and you said you would make all three outcomes possible at three different DCs, which I objected (incorrectly) that setting degrees of success in this way isn’t really supported in 5e. I’ve since been corrected, but I still would not attach all three possible outcomes to a single check. Based on the player’s goal (e.g. “reduce the damage” or “avoid the damage” or “land safely”) I would set one DC for the action, and it would be simple pass/fail.

Actually, in this specific example, I probably wouldn’t allow the player to take no damage. I would offer that they could instead make a Dexterity save to take half damage, and on a failure they would take an extra d6 of damage from the fall or something.

They were mine, and were really tossed out examples of how goal actually matters to action resolution. If I had known we'd end up with poor Mr. Flip going 0 for 10, I might have been more careful.

 

[Charlaquin]

Why wouldn't you? If you're in a dungeon, why wouldn't you carefully observe every room before you enter? That's where passive perception comes in. I remember one character, a monk as I recall, having a fairly ridiculously high passive perception - he spent feats on it I guess, something like a 20 or so (I'm old, memory is not what it used to be).

So, by and large, he spotted virtually any trap automatically. So, I would chuck in stuff to see, and then let them play with it. As a DM, I kinda want them to see the traps/secret doors. Makes play more interesting. Ok, you see the tripwire on the chest. What do you do?

"I use my thieves tools to disarm the trap." to me is a perfectly acceptable answer. The trap isn't all that interesting. What's inside is interesting.

I've almost never heard any gaming stories about that super interesting pit trap. ((Although the Shaker in the first Shackled City adventure was pretty memorable)). It's a trap. Spot it, disarm it, move on.

Did I just step into bizarro world? You’re making basically the exact argument I would make in favor of telegraphing traps. The only difference I can see between what you’re describing here and what I do is that you’re gating the telegraph behind a minimum passive Perception. Which I also did for a long time, it’s only recently that I decided doing so was really only a formality when anyone in the party had a high enough passive Perception, and hid the game when none of them did. I would also say “what you do to deal with it is interesting” rather than “what’s inside it is interesting,” but I think the underlying sentiment is basically the same.

 

[Hussar]

Searching thoroughly takes a lot of time and it occupies your attention. If you have all the time in the world and nothing else to do sure you would search every inch, but if you want to avoid patrolling monsters or sneak about so you can ambush the next group of monsters you come across you might not have time to search everything.

Oh, certainly. I'm not really sure how that's counter to what I'm saying though. By telegraphing traps, you avoid patroling monsters as well since you don't need to take any time finding the trap - there's a big sign that says, "TRAP HERE!" ((or, maybe a little sign. I dunno. There's a sign of some sort anyway))

And note, and this is why these conversations are difficult, we've shifted from "passive perception" which takes no time at all, to "searching thoroughly". "Carefully observing" now means "searching thoroughly"? "I look around the room" now takes several minutes of in game time?

But, this quote from @Ovinomancer

So, yes, if you try to fall 100' and take no damage (and aren't a monk), then the risk is big, it'll be hard, and failure will be ugly. The dice aren't to be looked at as a friend that can gift free stuff on high rolls, but a fickle monster that can hand out success and failure according to what you, the player, have risked.

Sums up my point pretty well. The notion that if you attempt anything not specifically called out by a skill must not only carry the risk of failure but also must carry an additional penalty far in excess of whatever benefit you might get is why I am so opposed to this style of DMing. It's just not what I want in a game.

Failure is it's own penalty. Failing a skill check does not mean that you must also add on additional punitive punishments. It's not about getting "free stuff on high rolls". Because, I'd point out, @Ovinomancer's own example gifts free stuff on a high roll. It's about recognizing that there is underlying math here and it's a game. It needs to be balanced or it just becomes a trap option.

I don't play to drop trap options on my players.